IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8535 of 2008 Between: Smt. Suvarna Bai W/o. Srinivasa Naik Agency for Mid-day Meel, Beluguppa Thanda, Beluguappa Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 2 The Tahsildar, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 N. Govinda Bai, W/o. Somla Naik, Lakshmi Dwaraka Mahila Sangham, Beluguppa Thanda, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ, order or direction more particulary one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondents issued cancellation orders without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner in Rc.No. RC/196/06 dated 11.04.2008 is as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and violation of rules, consequentlly directed the respondent to set aside the said orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.INENIVENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8535 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Suvarna Bai assailing the action of Tahsildar,Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District- 2nd Respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.RC/196/06, dated 11-4-2008 whereby and where under the N. Govinda Bai-3rd respondent has been appointed as Implementing Agency for Midday Meal in M.P.T.C. High School. 2. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as Implementing Agency for Midday Meal in Beluguppa Thanda in place of N. Govinda Bai w/o: Somla Naik in Beluguppa Thanda. Her grievance is that she has been removed as Implementing Agency and in her place of N. Govinda Bail-3rd respondent has been appointed without putting her on notice. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para 4 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition and it is thus: “I humbly submit that one Lakshmi Bai made complaint against the 2nd respondent before the Hon’ble Lokayukta. The above said Complainant is M.P.T.C. member and also Group leader of Lakshmi DWAKRA Mahila Sangam, Beluguppa Thanda. On the basis of complaint given by Lakshmi Bai the Hon’ble Lokayukata directed to 1st respondent to submit detailed report. As per directions of the Hon’ble Lokayukta the 1st respondent gave detailed in the letter on 15-2-2008 informed that the implementing agency for midday meal should be non Political non controversial and to discharge the duties without any self interest in serving food to school children. The implementing agency held by Smt. Lakshmi Bai is elected as M.P.T.C. with one political party aﬃliation Hence, she cannot do justice to the school children in serving the food without any bias self interest or political motive. Hence the complainant was removed and appointed me in the place of complainant, but the either complainant ( Lakshmi bai) or respondents are did not disclose entire things and also my appointment of agency midday meal to the Hon’ble Lokayukta suppressing all the relevant material facts in the said Thanda 24 Mahila Sangams were supported to the petitioner to appoint agency of midday meal, but these incidents not informed by the respondents, hence, the Hon’ble Lokayukta directed to 1st respondent reexamine the issue in the light of these observation and give necessary instructions to the public servant for doing justice to the Lakshmi DWAKRA Mahila Sangam of Beluguppa Thanda even though 24 Mahila groups in the said Thanda, at the time of appointment of petitioner as agency for midday meal supported all 24 Mahila DWAKRA Groups in the said Thanda”. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of the respondents NO.1 and 2. Respondent NO.3 entered appearance through a counsel. An interim order came to be passed on 24-7-2008 in W.P.M.P.No. 11300 of 2008 keeping the proceedings impugned in the writ petition in suspension. Respondents NO.1 and 2 ﬁled counter and moved W.V.M.P.No. 2814 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 7-8-2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.11300 of 2008. 4. Counter of the 2nd respondent in brief is that the petitioner came to be appointed on a temporary arrangement as Implementing Agency to manage the midday meals programme at Beluguppa Thanda. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that 3rd respondent came to be appointed pursuant to the directions given by A.P. Lokayukta dated 22-2- 2008 in Complaint NO. 1197/06/B2, dated 23-4-2008. 5. 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit contending that she came to be appointed pursuant to the directions given by A.P. Lokayuktha. Para 12 of the counter aﬃdavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “It appears that the petitioner herein though was initially given a temporary arrangement as the agency of conducting Mid-day meals scheme later got registered a Dwakra Group so called Sridevi Mahila Dwakra Sangham, Beluguppa Thanda, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapur District only to regularize her appointment under the said new Sangham. It appears that till date the oﬃcial respondents have not passed any resolution against the said Lakshmi Mahila Dwakra Sangham canceling the agency or granting fresh agency in the name of Sridevi Mahila Sangham as agency for the mid-day meals scheme.” 6. When the vacate stay petition came for consideration with the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that removing the petitioner as implementing agency of midday meal programme in Beluguppa Thanda without putting on her notice amounts to utter violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Implementing Agency for the midday meal programme in Beluguppa Thanda. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contends that the petitioner has been appointed as Implementing Agency consequent of N. Lakshmi Bai becoming ineligible organization because of her being elected M.P.T.C. member. A further submission has been made that the 3rd respondent came to be appointed as Implementing Agency of the midday meals pursuant to the direction given by the Andhra Pradesh Lokayutha and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any notice before her disengagement as Implementing Agency of the midday meal programme. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has been engaged as stop gap arrangement consequent on Laxmi Bai becoming member of M.P.T.C. and the same has been questioned before the A.P. Lokayukta and thereupon Lokayukta got the matter enquired and directed the authorities to consider the appointment of any other person in Lakshmi DWACRA Mahila Sangam as Implementing Agency of midday meal programme and as the order impugned in the writ petition came to be issued pursuant to the directions given by the Lokayukta, the petitioner is not entitled to any notice before discontinuance of her service as Implementing Agency of midday meal programme. 11. The issue whether the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.NO.94 have statutory force fell for consideration in Rudraamamba Mahila Dwacra Group Shiva Nagar, Warangal Vs. Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of A.P. [1] wherein it has been held that midday programme is a non- statutory scheme and the guidelines do not confer any right on petitioners therein. 12. Indisputably N.Lakshmi Bai DWACRA group was Implementing Agency of the midday meal programme in Beluguppa Thanda. Consequent of N.Lakshmi Bai becoming M.P.T.C. member, the petitioner was engaged as Implementing Agency. A complaint came to be ﬁled before the Lokayukta for disengagement of the group of Lakshmi Bai DWACRA group. The Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta opined that merely because the group leader is elected as M.P.T.C., the group itself does not incur disability to continue the implementing agency of midday meal programme. In view of the directions given by the Lokayukta, the authorities reconsidered the whole issue and appointed the 3rd respondent who is the group leader of Laxmi Bai DWACRA group as implementing agency of midday meal programme. 13. In the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any notice before her disengagement as Implementing Agency in the midday meals scheme of Beluguappa Thanda. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 12th November, 2008. Note: C.C. in a week B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8535 OF 2008 12th November, 2008. [1] 2004(6) ALD 157