THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19417 of 2009 Dated: 12.07.2011 Between: Apsana Self Help Group, Kadapa District. …Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District & others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri J. Lakshmi Narayana for Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&3: None Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for School Education The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19417 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner, which is a self-help group and was appointed as implementing agency under Midday Meals Scheme for Zilla Parishad Girls High School, Kamalapuram, has filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the proceedings in Ref.No.B.250/2009, dated 31.08.2009 of respondent No.1, whereby he terminated the petitioner’s services, on the sole ground that the said termination is not preceded by a show cause notice and an opportunity of being heard. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Educational Officer, Kamalapuram on behalf of all the respondents, it is inter alia stated that complaints were received to the effect that nearly 30 to 40 girl students were not taking meal on the ground that the petitioner, which was deploying labour, is not providing hygienic food. It is further stated that the Head Mistress of the school has warned the petitioner about the said complaints and also for allegedly not supplying egg twice in a week and that in the meeting held on 26.08.2009, which was attended by the Tahsildar, M.P.D.O, M.R.P. and M.E.O, a decision was taken for terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of a report of the Mandal Educational Officer, Kamalapuram. The entire counter affidavit is silent on the allegation of the petitioner that it was kept in dark without being given a notice and an opportunity to explain its case against the allegations levelled against it and on the basis of which it was eventually removed. In my opinion, even though the petitioner may not have a legally enforceable right for continuation, if its performance is unsatisfactory, still Principles of Natural Justice require that it is put on notice and given an opportunity of explaining its case, when it was sought to be removed on the allegation of unsatisfactory performance. This procedure not having been followed, the impugned action cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned termination order is set aside with liberty to the respondents to give a notice to the petitioner against the proposed action for termination. The petitioner is permitted to file its explanation. On considering the explanation, if any filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall pass a fresh order. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Since respondent No.3 appears to be permitted to act as implementing agency in place of the petitioner, I am not inclined to disturb this arrangement till respondent No.2 passes a fresh order. Further continuation of respondent No.3 shall depend upon the fresh decision that may be taken by respondent No.2. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.25361 of 2009 and 25718 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.07.2011 ES