JUDGMENT : ANSHUMAN, J. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not emphasizing prayer No. (iii) of the writ petition and seeks permission to delete the said prayer during the course of the day. 2. Permission granted. 3. Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Mid Day Meal. 4 . Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been filed to quash the letter dated 24.02.2025, issued by the Director, Mid Day Meal, wherein the Data Entry Operator-cum-Bihar Resource Person has been ordered to be terminated with effect from 31.03.2025, citing the reason of a shortage of budget. The petitioners further seek the quashing of the consequential order issued by the District Programme Officer, Mid Day Meal, Bihar, under Letter No. 491 dated 24.02.2025, which is in accordance with the aforementioned letter from the Director, Mid Day Meal, Bihar, Patna. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of Data Entry Operator-cum-Block Resource Person. A general notice was issued inviting different agencies to supply manpower for the placement of Data Entry Operator in all blocks of the district, as per Letter No. 1573 dated 11.07.2023 in accordance with Minute Nos. 6 and 7. In total of 15 agencies were selected for various districts of Bihar. Subsequently, these selected outsourcing agencies conducted a typing competency exam for the petitioners and recommended their names to the Directorate, Mid Day Meal, Bihar, Patna. The Directorate thereafter hold another competency test, in which the petitioners passed and then only their names were recommended for appointment as Data Entry Operator-cum-Bihar Resource Person in different blocks of the district. The District Programme Officer, Mid Day Meal, subsequently accepted the petitioners' joining in their respective district offices in 2023 for the position of Data Entry Operator-cum- Bihar Resource Person. Following this, some of the petitioners were assigned to specific blocks through office orders issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer, Mid Day Meal. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that all the outsourcing agencies executed agreements with the Education Department (MDM) between August and October 2023, initially for a period of three years, with the possibility of an extension for an additional two years, provided the work shall be found satisfactory. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that all the outsourcing agencies executed agreements with the Education Department (MDM) between August and October 2023, initially for a period of three years, with the possibility of an extension for an additional two years, provided the work shall be found satisfactory. The petitioners were appointed in September, October, and other months of 2023, and till date, there have been no adverse remarks either against the petitioners or their respective agencies. Following the satisfactory completion of one year of service by the petitioners, the department, in accordance with the agreement, extended their services for an additional year through Letter No. 3115 dated 17.10.2024, issued by the Director, Mid Day Meal, Bihar, Patna. This extension is applicable throughout Bihar. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Patna, issued Letter No. 315 dated 17.01.2025, which indicates that the services of Data Entry Operators whose service period has already been extended by the competent authority will not be disturbed. Following this, the Director, Mid Day Meal, Bihar, Patna, issued Letter No. 3115 dated 17.10.2024, extending the service period of Data Entry Operators- cum- Bihar Resource Persons engaged on a contractual basis for an additional one year, i.e., until September-October 2025. According to the letter dated 17.10.2024, the services of petitioners who have completed or are about to be completed one year of service have been extended for another year, with their extended service likely to conclude between September and November 2025. The petitioners, along with other similarly situated persons, have been performing their duties to the full satisfaction of the competent authority. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, all of a sudden, the Director, Mid Day Meal, Bihar, Patna, issued Letter No. 491 dated 24.02.2025, directing all District Programme Officers (DPOs) of the Mid Day Meal to cease utilizing the services of Data Entry Operators -cum- Bihar Resource Persons (BRP) due to a budget shortfall. Relying on this letter, the concerned DPOs of various districts issued separate communications through different memos, informing the petitioners who are currently serving as Data Entry Operators – cum- Bihar Resource Persons that their services will no longer be required after 31.03.2025. The petitioners were also instructed to hand over their charge by 5:00 PM on 31.03.2025. 8. Relying on this letter, the concerned DPOs of various districts issued separate communications through different memos, informing the petitioners who are currently serving as Data Entry Operators – cum- Bihar Resource Persons that their services will no longer be required after 31.03.2025. The petitioners were also instructed to hand over their charge by 5:00 PM on 31.03.2025. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Mid Day Meal scheme of the Education Department is funded with 60% from the Central Government and 40% from the State Government. He submits that it is not within the ambit of the Director, Mid Day Meal, that the scheme is being closed or run rather, the issues that whether unused funds are available in the account of the Single Nodal Agency, and whether the competent authority has submitted any budget to the Finance Department, have not been disclosed. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioners, along with other similarly situated persons, had their services extended until October 2025. However, after the issuance of the letter dated 24.02.2025, it has now been communicated that their services will not be required after 31.03.2025. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioners submitted a detailed representation on 25.02.2025 to Respondent No. 2 regarding this issue. However, no decision has been taken on the said representation by the concerned officials as of yet. Learned Senior Counsel asserts that such a decision is completely illegal and invalid under the law, and by this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the said letter dated 24.02.2025 before this Hon'ble Court. 10. In support of his argument, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Shripal and Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. He specifically refers to paragraph 11 of the said judgment and submits that the petitioners were appointed through an outsourcing agency, which was selected under the Mid Day Meal scheme for implementing the government’s policy. Therefore, the State is ultimately responsible, and as such, this writ petition is maintainable because the ultimate employer in this case is the State, not the outsourcing agency. 11. Therefore, the State is ultimately responsible, and as such, this writ petition is maintainable because the ultimate employer in this case is the State, not the outsourcing agency. 11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the petitioners' services were utilized for the implementation of the policy, and subsequently their services were directed to be extended by the competent authority, the Director, Mid Day Meal, until September 2025, the issuance of the letter on 24.02.2025, directing that their services, along with those of other similarly situated persons, will not be required after 31.03.2025, is both legally erroneous and in gross violation of the ratio laid down in the case of Shripal (supra). 12. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. He submits that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addresses the misuse of temporary employment contracts, holding that "engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale." The Hon’ble Supreme Court further instructs that by ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness they are meant to embody. Learned Senior Counsel, by virtue of his pleadings and the judgments cited above, submits that the impugned letter dated 24.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mid Day Meal, submits that, prima facie, the present writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the petitioners are appointees of outsourcing agencies under a contractual agreement. Presently no counter-affidavit has been filed, but the materials upon which he relies are already available on record. He submits that the Offer-cum-Appointment letters of the petitioners are attached from page 96 onwards to the writ petition. A perusal of the appointment letters makes it clear that the petitioners are appointees of outsourcing agencies and admittedly the outsourcing agencies are not the State. He submits that the Offer-cum-Appointment letters of the petitioners are attached from page 96 onwards to the writ petition. A perusal of the appointment letters makes it clear that the petitioners are appointees of outsourcing agencies and admittedly the outsourcing agencies are not the State. The contract contains specific conditions, including that the contract is for a period of 11 months, and that the contract may be terminated at any time. If the project is terminated due to unavoidable circumstances, the contract will come to an end with immediate effect. 14. Learned counsel for Mid Day Meal further submits that the Mid Day Meal scheme is primarily aimed at improving the nutritional status of school children, encouraging regular school attendance, and promoting social equality by providing free, nutritious meals. The scheme has been implemented to align with the policy of the Central Government, with funding provided by both the Central and State Governments. However, this scheme is not permanent in nature; it is temporary and continues only as long as funding is available from the funding agencies. Learned counsel further submits that the Director of Mid Day Meal is committed and diligent in his duties, and he has full respect for his responsibilities. It is for this reason that, upon receiving information about the shortage of funds, the Director issued the letter notifying that, due to the shortage of funds, Mid Day Meal Directorate will not be in a position to make payments beyond 31.03.2025. Therefore, he submits that the orders under challenge are legal and warrant no interference. 15. Learned counsel for Mid Day Meal further submits that, at the time of appointing the agencies, an agreement was executed, which is Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. The agreement includes a Dispute Resolution mechanism, as outlined on page 112 of the writ petition. Specifically, Clause 1.3.1 discusses the mode of Conciliation, while Clause 1.3.3 addresses Arbitration. 16. In response to the said submission, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present dispute is not between the agency and the Mid Day Meal scheme, but rather between the petitioners, who are citizens, and the Mid Day Meal agency. As such, the petitioners cannot invoke the Arbitration Clause. Therefore, this point is not sustainable. 17. 16. In response to the said submission, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present dispute is not between the agency and the Mid Day Meal scheme, but rather between the petitioners, who are citizens, and the Mid Day Meal agency. As such, the petitioners cannot invoke the Arbitration Clause. Therefore, this point is not sustainable. 17. Learned counsel for Mid Day Meal further submits that the scheme related to Bal Didi has been challenged in two writ petitions filed by concerned persons before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 10761 of 2023 (titled Asha Kumari and Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.), decided on 17.10.2014, and in CWJC No. 22252 of 2012 (titled Anju Kumari and Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.), decided on 26.02.2014. In both writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed as Bal Didi or Lok Didi as part of a policy run by the Bihar Education Project Council. In both cases, the Hon’ble Court refused to entertain the grievances of the Bal Didi and Lok Didi petitioners, as they were appointed under the policy administered by the Bihar Education Project Council. 18. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment rendered in the case of Shripal (supra), as cited by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable in the present case. This is because, in the Shripal judgment, the workmen had challenged their reinstatement with back wages, following two conflicting awards passed by the Labour Court. These awards were subsequently challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and then before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel submits that the facts and circumstances of that case are different from those of the present case and are not identical. 19. He further submits that the judgment rendered in the case of Jaggo (supra) is also not applicable, as the appellants in Jaggo were seeking regularization of service arising out of the decision of the Principal Bench, CAT. Therefore, the judgments rendered in Shripal (supra) and Jaggo (supra), which arose from orders passed by the Labour Court and the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, are not applicable to the present case. Moreover, learned counsel submits that in this context, the present writ petition itself is not maintainable, as there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Mid Day Meal scheme. Moreover, learned counsel submits that in this context, the present writ petition itself is not maintainable, as there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Mid Day Meal scheme. The petitioners’ fundamental document is their own contract, and they are bound by its terms. 20. After hearing Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, assisted by Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, and Mr. Girijish Kumar, learned counsel for Mid Day Meal, as well as upon perusal of certain materials admitted by virtue of the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis for their respective posts, and the contract was between the outsourcing agencies and the petitioners. It is also admitted that the outsourcing agencies entered into an agreement with the officials of the Mid Day Meal scheme. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the clause in the terms of the agreement, as annexed at page 112 of the writ petition, for resolving disputes through Conciliation and Arbitration is not applicable to the petitioners. On this point, this Court agrees with the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. However, it is also true that the petitioners' rights have been created solely by virtue of the contract, and as such, they are bound by its conditions. At the time of the contract’s creation, it was clearly understood by the parties, including the petitioners, that the work could be terminated immediately due to unavoidable circumstances of the contract by which petitioners’ rights have been created. Consequently, this condition was included in Clause 12, which reads as follows: “12. Your Services may be terminated with one month notice and /or without assigning any reason thereof depending on the seriousness as decided by the Client. Failing to serve the notice period of 30 (thirty) days from your side, you will be recovered the losses, damages, expenses incurred on your training and any other penalty/fine as fixed by the agency. You will not claim for any rights or employer employee relationship with the client/agency.” 21. The aforesaid clause is most relevant, as it indicates that services may be terminated with one month's notice. You will not claim for any rights or employer employee relationship with the client/agency.” 21. The aforesaid clause is most relevant, as it indicates that services may be terminated with one month's notice. In the present case, upon perusal of the letter dated 24.02.2025, it is clear to this Court that, as a policy decision, the Director of the project, upon realizing that he was not in a position to continue the work due to a lack of budget, made the decision to halt the services. Therefore, this Court cannot direct any agency to alter the policy. The availability or non- availability of the budget is within the domain of the person administering the policy, and not within the jurisdiction of the Court. 22. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said letter dated 24.02.2025. However, this Court hereby directs that the protection to the petitioners, in light of Clause 12 of the agreement, must be upheld. Therefore, if the termination has occurred without one month's notice, the petitioners shall be entitled to receive their salary for that one month only as per Clause 12 of the condition of service mentioned above. 23. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.