THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :12736 of 2009 Date: 5.7.2010 Between: Saramma and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Educational Officer and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Girmoji Rao Counsel for Respondents: A.G.P. for Education The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 0WRIT PETITION No :12736 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order dated 23.12.2008 issued by respondent No.2, whereby, he has cancelled order dated 12.12.2008 issued by the Two Men Committee appointing the petitioners as mid-day meals implementing agencies. The petitioners were appointed as mid-day meals implementing agencies for MH Appa AHS and ECM High School, respectively, by respondent No.3-Committee. A few days later, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order cancelling the said appointment by respondent No.3 and directing selection of new implementing agencies. It is however stated in the said order that the petitioners will be continued till new implementing agencies are selected and appointed. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The challenge to the impugned order in this writ petition is two fold; namely, that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to set aside the petitioners’ appointment and that even if respondent No.2 had jurisdiction, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, as no prior notice and opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is admitted that the petitioners were duly appointed by respondent No.3-Committee in accordance with the Government instructions. While purporting to deny the allegation of lack of prior notice, it is however averred that the appointment of the petitioners was set aside on the ground that the Two Men Committee has not followed the Government guidelines. While the issue regarding the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 to cancel the appointment made by the Two Men Committee has not been specifically adverted to in the counter affidavit, a rather vague stand is taken on the issue of lack of notice to the petitioners. The counter proceeded on the premise that by giving the petitioners an opportunity to continue till the new agencies are selected, the principles of natural justice have been complied with. It has also been averred that under the impugned order, respondent No.2 has granted the petitioners time to give their explanation. As regards the plea of the petitioners with respect to the jurisdiction of respondent No.2, the guidelines governing the appointment and cancellation of such appointments are not placed before the Court. However, in the absence of such guidelines, it is reasonable to assume that the power to cancel the appointment is vested with the appointing authority. It is not pleaded by respondent No.2 that any such power is conferred on him, being the superior authority. Therefore, it is respondent No.3-Committee, which alone will have the power and jurisdiction to set aside the appointment order, unless respondent No.2 is an appellate authority and exercised his jurisdiction in that capacity. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that the impugned order was passed by him in such capacity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that even if any irregularities are stated to have taken place, it is only respondent No.3, which has the power to cancel the previous order. With regard to the second ground of challenge, the averment in the counter affidavit that by permitting the petitioners to continue as implementing agencies till new agencies are appointed, the respondents have complied with the principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced as removal of the petitioners results in adverse consequences. Such an action ought to have been preceded by a notice and an opportunity of hearing. As no such procedure has been followed before the impugned order was passed, the same cannot be sustained. The petitioners’ continuance till new agencies have been selected and appointed, does not satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. If it is found that the petitioners’ appointments are not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the competent authority under the regulations/guidelines is entitled to review appointments by following the procedure and after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing by way of show cause notice and take appropriate action. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 5th July, 2010 pnb