IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 11 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt.Nagandla Hanumayamma W/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.Gottypadu village, PRathipadu Mandal Guntur District ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal & Post Guntur District 2 The Mandal Educational Officer,Prathipaud Post & Mandal Guntur District. 3 Smt.Guntupalli Dhanalakshmi W/o.Sivarama Krishna R/.o.Gottypadu village Prathipadu Mandal, GUntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling for the records leading up to and inclusive of the proceedings of the 1st respondent herein in Rc.No.372/2008-CS dated 31.12.2008 and quash the same by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Petitioner questions the order of the Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal, passed in Rc.No.372/2008-CS dated 31.12.2008 by which the third respondent is appointed as Implementing Agency for Mandal Parishad Primary Elementary School (TS), Gottipadu Village from 01.01.2009 to serve Mid-Day meal to pupils by removing the petitioner and in directing her to hand over balance rice stock and utensils to the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Implementing Agency to Mandal Parishad Primary Elementary School (TS), Gottipadu Village on 11.02.2003 and since then she has been drawing her salary through Andhra Bank, Prathipadu Post and Mandal. While so, the impugned order has been passed alleging that the petitioner served mid-day meal to the pupils of MPPES (TS), Gottipadu Village up to 11.06.2008 and on 21.06.2008 she rendered her resignation to duty for preparing mid-day meal and that the third respondent put in her application requesting for appointment as Implementing Agency. The said matter was referred to the Mandal Education Officer, Prathipadu Mandal for enquiry and report. The Mandal Education Officer submitted his report recommending the appointment of the third respondent as Implementing Agency and accordingly the third respondent was appointed as Implementing Agency to serve mid-day meal to pupils. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner never tendered her resignation and no enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Education Officer, Prathipadu. Even the so-called references mentioned in the impugned order does not indicate any date of representation alleged to be submitted by the third respondent and also the date of the proceedings of the Mandal Education Officer. He further submits that the petitioner never tendered her resignation and the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 5. I am of the opinion that instead of granting stay of operation of the impugned order, it is just and proper to treat the impugned order as show cause notice so as to enable the petitioner to submit her explanation and to enable the third respondent to submit her representation, as it is asserted that the petitioner never tendered any resignation and that there was no enquiry. If such course if adopted, I am of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties to the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal to treat the impugned order as show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and at the same time giving an opportunity to the third respondent to submit her representation. If no explanation is submitted within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order holds good. If explanation is submitted within ten days the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till then status quo obtaining as on 31.12.2008 shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J January 7, 2009 DSK