IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.5350 of 2010 Between: Jinkiri Manemma and others. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Santosh Kumar for Sri C.Damodar Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Education. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 to 14 in seeking to discontinue the agencies of the petitioners as implementing agencies/cooks of mid-day meal programme in their respective schools and villages, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claimed to have been appointed as implementing agencies/cooks for providing mid-day meal to the respective schools, for which they were appointed. They pleaded that in view of change of dispensation in local bodies and Gram Panchayats, the newly elected MPTCs., and Sarpanches of the villages concerned are making hectic efforts to change the petitioners with a view to appoint their own kith and kin. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perusing the material, I am of the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one: Firstly, this Writ Petition is filed on a mere apprehension that the petitioners may be likely to be dislodged. No specific averment is made and no material is filed in support thereof as to the basis for this apprehension except stating that some of the respondents have been openly proclaiming so. This Court seldom entertains cases filed on the basis of a mere apprehension unsupported by any material. The Writ Petition, in my opinion, is totally premature. Secondly, the petitioners have not filed their appointment orders. They have not disclosed the terms and conditions subject to which they were appointed. They have also failed to plead whether their appointments fall within the realm of contract or/are in the nature of an employment. In the opinion of this Court, if the appointments are contractual in nature and their proposed dispensation is contrary to the contract, this Court will not interfere with such a dispute as the petitioners have to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit. If, on the other hand, they hold employment, unless they are able to show that they pertain to public employment, the Writ Petition cannot be maintained. For all the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:09-3-2010 MNR