Patna High Court

Shyam KumarversusThe Union of India

Decided: 17 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Employees of outsourcing agencies cannot directly challenge the termination order; only the agency can, and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, appointed as Block Resource Persons (BRPs) under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan through private outsourcing agencies, challenged a memo dated 28‑02‑2025 that directed agencies to cease employing BRPs after 31‑03‑2025. They sought a declaration that the order be set aside and that they continue to be engaged until the scheme ends or regular appointments are made. The State argued that the petitioners were employees of the outsourcing agencies and that their contracts terminated when the agencies were instructed to stop services. The court observed that the impugned memo was addressed to the agencies, not the individual employees, and that only the agencies have locus standi to contest it. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners could not directly challenge the termination order and dismissed the writ, allowing them to sue the agencies if the agencies' own writ is decided in their favour.

Issues considered

Can employees of outsourcing agencies directly challenge a government order terminating their services under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan?
Whether the court can direct continuation of the petitioners' services beyond the stipulated termination date?
Whether the impugned memo addressed to the agencies can be contested by individual employees

Subjects

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
outsourcing
employment
Block Resource Person
contract termination
public procurement
writ petition
government scheme

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7147 of 2025
======================================================
1. Shyam Kumar Son of Shiv Shankar Mandal, Resident of Nirmali, Navtoli,
Ward No.-12, P.O. and P.S.- Nirmali, District- Supaul.
2. Dilkhush Kumar Son of Ram Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Baisi, P.S.- Karjain, District- Supaul, Bihar.
3. Pramod Kumar Son of Shubh Narayan Yadav, Resident of Mruli, Ward No.-
5, P.O.- Murli, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, Pin-852105, District- Supaul, Bihar.
4. Randhir Kumar Son of Jagat Narayan Mandal, Resident of- Piprahi, P.O. and
P.s.- Piprahi, District- Supaul, Bihar.
5. Abhay Kumar Jha Son of Rameshwar Jha, Resident of- Ward No.10 Purab
Tola, Village- Baruari, P.O.- Garh, P.S.- Baruari, District- Supaul.
6. Niraj Kumar Raj Son of Upendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of- 26, Lohiya
Nagar, Williams Field, Ward No.-9, P.O.- Supaul, P.S.- Supaul, District-
Supaul, Bihar.
7. Ajeet Kumar Son of Subhash Chandra Dey, Resident of- Ward No. 04,
Madhuban, P.O.- Turkai, P.S.- Madhuban, District- Madhepura, Bihar.
8. Rakesh Chandra Jha Son of Shree Narayan Jha, Resident of Murli Ward No.
09, P.O. and P.S.- Murli, District Supaul, Bihar.
9. Sourav Kumar Suman Son of Vishnu Dev Prasad, Resident of- Ward No.3,
Hardi Tola, Visanpur, P.O- Hardi West, P.S.- Hardi, District- Supaul, Bihar.
10. Md. Irshad Son of Md. Tajmul, Resident of- Kamalpur, P.O.- Kamalpur, P.S-
Kunauli, District Supaul, Bihar.
11. Guriya Kumari Wife of Ramvilash Kumar Yadav, Resident of- Ward No.10,
Pattarghattii, Talha Garhia, P.O. and P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul,
Bihar.
12. Kumar Mani Kant @ Manikant Kumar Mani Son of Chadrakant Kumar,
Resident of- Bishenpur, Ward No.-11, P.O.-0 Bashaha, P.S.- Pipra, Basaha,
District Supaul, Bihar.
13. Pradeep Kumar Son of Umesh Pandit, Resident of Village- Parsa, P.O.-
Bathan, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura, Bihar.
14. Amarjeet Kumar Son of Garibdas Rajbhar, Resident of Village- Basantpur,
P.O.- Raybhir, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura, Bihar.
15. Kanchan Kumari Wife of- Sudhist Kumar, Resident of- Near M.L.D.P.,
Bhirkhi, Ward No.21, P.O., P.S. and District- Madhepura, Bihar.
16. Akshay Kumar Son of Munindra Pr. Ratna, Resident of- Pipra, Ward No. 12,
P.O. and P.S.- Pipra Bazar, District- Supaul, Bihar.
17. Mukesh Kumar Son of Arvind Prasad Yadav, Resident of- Ward No. 11,
Bishanpur, P.O.- Basaha, P.S. Pipra, District- Supaul, Bihar.
18. Ramanand Kumar @ Ramanand Lahotiya Son of - Satyadev Lahotiya,
Resident of- Harihar Patti, Gonha, Ward No.-09, P.O.- Gonha, P.S.-
Triveniganj, District- Supaul, Bihar.
19. Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Chaudhary Son of Yogendra Chaudhary,
Patna High Court CWJC No. 7147 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/7

Resident of- Andouli, Ward No. 06, P.O.- Andouli, P.S.- Kishanpur, District-
Supaul, Bihar.
20. Rohit Kumar Son of- Jaykrishna Kusiyat, Resident of- Ward No. 03, Tekuna,
P.O.- Tekuna, P.S- , District- Supaul, Bihar.
21. Ranjeet Kumar Son of- Ravindra Mandal, Resident of- Bairbanna, Ward
No.-06, P.O.- Behri, P.S.- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura, Bihar.
22. Santosh Kumar Son of- Yogendra Pandit Resident of- Chikni Fulkaha, Ward
No. 05, P.O.- Chikni Fulkaha, P.S.- Gamaheriya, District Madhepura, Bihar.
23. Deepak Kumar Son of Dinesh Ram, Resident of- Pipra Ward No.-14, P.O.
and P.S- Pipra, District- Supaul, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The Union of India through Secretary (School Education and Literacy),
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The State of Bihar, through The Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Administrative Officer, Bihar Education Project Council, Shiksha
Bhawan, Rastra Bhasha Parsishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar Patna.
6. The Director Administration-cum-Additional Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
7. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
8. The District Programme Officer-cum-Primary Education and Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Bihar Education Project, Supaul, District- Supaul.
9. The District Education Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
10. The Block Development Officer, Marauna, District- Supaul.
11. The Block Development Officer, Nirmali, District- Supaul.
12. The Block Development Officer, Basantpur, District- Supaul.
13. The Block Development Officer, Raghopur, District- Supaul.
14. The Block Development Officer, Saraigarh, District- Supaul.
15. The Block Development Officer, Kishanpur, District- Supaul.
16. The Block Development Officer, Pipra, District- Supaul.
17. The Block Development Officer, Chatapur, District- Supaul.
18. The Block Development Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
19. The Block Development Officer, Pratapganj, District- Supaul.
20. The Block Education Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
21. The Block Education Officer, Marauna, District- Supaul.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 7147 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/7

22. The Block Education Officer, Nirmali, District- Supaul.
23. The Block Education Officer, Basantpur, District- Supaul.
24. The Block Education Officer, Raghopur, District- Supaul.
25. The Block Education Officer, Saraigarh, District- Supaul.
26. The Block Education Officer, Kishanpur, District- Supaul.
27. The Block Education Officer, Pipra, District- Supaul.
28. The Block Education Officer, Chatapur, District- Supaul.
29. The Block Education Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
30. The Block Education Officer, Pratapganj, District- Supaul.
31. The Block Education Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
32. M/s ESEPL Group, Office Address at Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Boring Canal
Road, Patna.
33. M/s Samantha Security and Intelligence Services (P) Pvt.- Patna, Office No.-
205, Shashi Complex, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar,
India-800001.
34. M/s B.P.AC. India Pvt. Ltd., Office Address at 191, B4, Opposite Road
No.5, Jay Prakash Nagar, Patna-800025.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. SC-6
For the BEPC : Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
For the UOI : Mrs. Priya Gupta, Central Govt. Counsel
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER

2 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Bihar Education

Project Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘BEPC’) and learned

counsel for the Union of India.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

i. For setting aside order
Patna High Court CWJC No. 7147 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026
4/7

Contained in Memo No.330 dated
28.02.2025 issued to 3 agencies including
M/s ESEPL Group, Sahdeo Mahto Marg,
Boring Canal Road, Patna. M/s Samantha
Security & Intelligence Services (P) Pvt.
-Patna and BPAC India Pvt. Ltd, Patna,
whereby the direction has been issued not to
take services of B.R.P.s (Block Resource
Person) after 31.03.2025.
ii. For issuance of direction to the
respondent's authorities to continue to take
services of the petitioners as Block Resource
Persons in their respective blocks even after
31.03.2025 till the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyaan is
existing and until regular appointment on
the post of BRPs is made.
iii. For any other relief or reliefs /
interim relief as your honor may deem fit
and proper.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

appointment of the petitioners took place under the Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme of the Central Government, under

which major funds are provided by the Central Government for

the purpose of providing basic primary education to children of

all sections of society. Counsel further submits that the

Government of Bihar, under the said scheme, has been acting in

accordance with the Central Government’s guidelines but later
Patna High Court CWJC No. 7147 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026
5/7

decided to engage private agencies for providing different kinds

of services under the District Project Management Scheme and

Block Project Management Scheme. In this connection, a NIT

bearing No. Professionals/Educations/2023/01, dated

21.06.2023, was issued, by which 18 agencies were empaneled.

4. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are

individuals who were selected by the agencies to provide the

services. Counsel further submits that the petitioners were

selected through the agency, namely, private respondent Nos.

32, 33 & 34 of the present writ petition, but their service

conditions are governed by Government policy. The order

impugned is annexed as Annexure P/8, which is a memo

communicated to the agency vide Memo No. 330, dated

28.02.2025. Counsel further submits that, on the one hand, the

services of the petitioners have been terminated, but on the other

hand, vide letter dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P/9), internal

correspondence was made by the Director-cum-Additional

Secretary, Education Department, to all District Education

Officers regarding the consideration and need for engaging the

services of the petitioners and similarly placed persons.

Therefore, counsel submits that notice be issued to private

respondent Nos. 32, 33 & 34, and the writ petition of the
Patna High Court CWJC No. 7147 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026
6/7

petitioners be entertained, directing counter-affidavits from the

Bihar Education Project Council as well as the State

Government.

5. Counsel also submits that a writ petition has been

filed by the outsourcing agency before this Court, bearing

CWJC No. 4323 of 2025, which is pending for adjudication.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

counter-affidavit has already been filed. In the counter-affidavit,

the stand taken by the State is that the petitioners were engaged

through an outsourcing agency and were not directly appointed

by the State. When the authority concerned decided not to

continue work with the said agency, their contracts were

consequently terminated.

7. Learned counsel for the Administrative Officer,

Bihar Education Project Council (respondent No. 5), submits

that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already

been decided by this Court vide Judgment dated 25.03.2025 in

CWJC No. 4556 of 2025. Counsel further submits that, since the

petitioner was an employee of the outsourcing agency and not of

the State, the contract contains a specific condition that if the

project is terminated due to unavoidable circumstances, the

contract will come to an end with immediate effect.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 7147 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026
7/7

8. In light of the submissions made above, it

transpires to this Court that the petitioners were appointed for

the completion of various schemes under the Sarva Shiksha

Abhiyan. It has been decided that, after 31.03.2025, services

from the outsourcing agency shall not be continued. It is only

due to this reason that the petitioners have become aggrieved.

9. It also transpires to this Court, from the record, that

the impugned letter has been issued to the outsourcing agency

and not to the petitioners. The outsourcing agency may have the

right to challenge the same, but not the petitioners. Therefore,

this Court is of the firm view that employees of the outsourcing

agency shall not challenge the impugned order.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to sue against the

outsourcing agency who appointed them, in case the writ

petition, filed by the outsourcing agency, is decided in their

favor.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…