THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16199 OF 2009 Dated 20th July, 2010 Between: Priyanka Mahila Mandal …Petitioner And The Mandal Education Officer, Mandal Parishad, Hanamkonda Mandal and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Sridhar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Education Counsel for respondents 2 to 4: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in allotting the work pertaining to cooking of midday meal to respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a self-help group. The State Government has introduced a scheme of providing a meal to the School going children and named it as “midday meal” scheme. Vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002, the Government has issued guidelines for implementation of midday meal scheme. As per these guidelines, the implementing agencies are selected and engaged for providing midday meal to the School children. At Mandal Level, an implementation committee comprising Mandal Revenue Officer; Mandal Parishad Development Officer; Mandal Resource Person; Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies and Mandal Education Officer, who will be member convenor, will oversee the appointment and implementation of the midday meal scheme. By proceedings dated 10.06.2009, respondent No.1 communicated to the petitioner that it is appointed as implementing agency for Government High School, Somidi, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have entrusted the said work to respondent No.4. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. As respondent No.4 was not originally impleaded, the petitioner has impleaded it and with the permission of the Court, the petitioner served notice on it. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed before the Court acknowledgment of notice served on it. Despite service of notice, respondent No.4 is not represented at the hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the official respondents in replacing the petitioner with respondent No.4 is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that proceedings dated 10.06.2009 issued by respondent No.1 have not been cancelled to the knowledge of his client nor any cancellation order has been served on it and that unless proper procedure is followed in cancelling the petitioner’s appointment order, respondent No.4 cannot be selected and appointed. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is, inter alia, stated that though the petitioner is appointed by respondent No.1 on the basis of seniority, having noticed that the selection and appointment of the petitioner is in deviation of instructions issued by the District Collector, Warnagal, vide his proceedings R.C.No.12144/MDM/2008 dated 15.10.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.94 Education (SE-Prog.1) Department dated 25.11.2002; respondent No.3 has cancelled the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 and appointed respondent No.4 as implementing agency. In my opinion, if the appointment of the petitioner is found illegal or improper, the official respondents are bound to follow fair procedure. The least that the petitioner is entitled to before cancellation of its appointment order is a notice and an opportunity of hearing. By being appointed as implementing agency, a right came to be vested in the petitioner. Such a right cannot be taken away by respondent No.3 without following the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. As no plea is raised by respondent No.3 that the petitioner is given a prior opportunity and the purported order of cancellation has not been served on the petitioner, appointment of respondent No.4 cannot be sustained. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his counter respondent No.3 has neither given reference of the proceedings by which the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled or respondent No.4 was appointed nor he has filed these proceedings along with the counter-affidavit. In the above circumstances, the action of respondent No.3 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly declared as illegal. The petitioner shall be continued as implementing agency till the Committee competent to appoint under the scheme re-examines the selection and takes a fresh decision. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th July, 2010 vrn