1 WP 2569......2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2011 Dattarao S/o Vithalrao Shinde Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Service as Head Master, R/o : Ambala, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. : Nanded. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Nanded, Dist. Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.B.Narwadee Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3804 OF 2011 Ashok S/o Anandrao Shinde Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. Service 2 WP 2569......2011 - [ J ] as Shikshan Sevak, R/o : Ambala, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. : Nanded. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Nanded, Dist. Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.B.Narwadee Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the 3 WP 2569......2011 - [ J ] learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioners are the Head Master and Shikshan Sevak working in the School run by Zilla Parishad. A Complaint was filed by one Ratnamala Kadam that she noticed a tail of Lizard in the Khichadi served to her daughter under the Mid day meal scheme. The Block Development Officer issued show cause notice to the petitioners stating that why two ( 2 ) annual increments should not be stopped permanently on account of negligence. The petitioners filed their reply. The respondent no. 3 thereafter vide its order dated 18/07/2005 stopped two ( 2 ) annual increments of the petitioners permanently. The petitioners aggrieved thereby, filed Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the said Appeal. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions against the aforesaid orders. 4. Mr. Narwadee Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not supposed to look after and supervise the Mid day meal which was provided to the students. The petitioners are the Head Master and Shikshan Sevak. As per the scheme and the Govt. 4 WP 2569......2011 - [ J ] Order, it is the responsibility of Gram Shikshan Samiti to look after the distribution of the Mid day meal. It is further stated in the said scheme that the teachers are required to look after the academics and there should not be negligence on their part in respect of academic work, as such they are not to be allotted such work. According to the learned counsel, the job of the teachers is only to assist the Gram Shikshan Samiti and nothing more than that. According to the learned counsel, this aspect has not been considered. 5. Mr. Panpatte, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 supports the order passed and states that the teachers are required to assist in the distribution of the meal. They can not be negligent when they have to assist. They have to do the work with all diligence. A tail of the Lizard was found only on account of the negligence of the petitioners. The authorities have properly considered the same. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the scheme. 7. The scheme providing for the mid day meal to the students lays down the respective duties and the responsibilities. The persons concerned 5 WP 2569......2011 - [ J ] are required to adhere to the responsibilities laid down therein. As per the said scheme, it is the duty and the responsibility of Gram Shikshan Samiti to distribute the cooked food. It also lays down that the teachers should not be included in the said scheme as that would result in negligence on their part in the academics and their participation was only to the extent of assisting the distribution of the food. 8. For the act complained i.e. finding a tail of the Lizard in the cooked food, the teachers can not be made responsible. When as per the scheme they are not responsible, they can not be punished for the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the Gram Shikshan Samiti or any other person. 9. In light of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 2569.2011 - [ J ] 6 WP 2569......2011 - [ J ]