IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22109 of 2004 Between: Sk.Adambi, W/o.Sk.Kasim Saheb, 48 years, Occ: Mid-Day Meal Cooking Agent, St.Xavier’s Elementary School, Ongole … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, and others … Respondents Order: The petitioner questions order dated 31-10-2004 passed by the first respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, vide proceedings Rc.A/1261/2002. The petitioner is appointed as implementing agency, for cooking food to school children under Mid-Day Meal programme, with regard to St.Xavier’s elementary School, Ongole, Prakasam District. In view of the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ongole that she is not supplying meal to the children in time and not preparing curries properly, the first respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer passed the impugned order canceling the agency of the petitioner and appointed the third respondent herein as implementing agency, in her place. It is the case of the petitioner that no enquiry is conducted and no opportunity is given to her before canceling her agency. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that, to achieve universalisation of elementary education, many programmes are being undertaken and though much progress is achieved in enrolling children to schools, the progress achieved in retaining them at schools is not commensurate with enrolment and one of the reasons identified for the shortcoming is lack of nutritious food; to overcome the said shortcoming, a programme, namely, National Programme for Nutritional Support has been notified as per which a child who puts in 80 per cent attendance is given 3 kilograms of rice every month. It is stated that, for the implementation of the said programme, the Government has identified and appointed agencies in various schools. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as implementing agency of the aforesaid programme with regard to St.Xavier’s Elementary School, Ongole. As there were certain allegations against her, the matter was enquired into by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ongole and on enquiry it was found that she was not supplying meal to the children in time and not preparing curries properly. Thus, by the impugned order, her services were dispensed with and the third respondent herein was appointed as implementing agency in her place, in public interest. Although it is pleaded by the petitioner that no notice was issued to her before passing the impugned order, it is to be seen that the petitioner is appointed as implementing agency. Hence, she is not entitled for issuance of any notice. So long as the respondents desire to continue her as implementing agency, the petitioner can function as such; but, in absence of any specific contract for a specific period, it is always open to the respondents to terminate her services without assigning any reason and at any time. Furthermore, it is to be seen that it has been proved in the enquiry that the petitioner is found to have committed irregularities in implementing the Mid-Day Meal Programme, the object of which is to supply nutritious food to school-going children. If there are any complaints against such implementing agencies and when they are proved in the enquiry, continuance of such agencies will defeat the very object of the programme. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief, as sought, can be granted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 11, 2010 MRR