HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.22945 of 2020
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated
12.09.2020 issued by the fourth respondent and the consequential notice
dated 02.11.2020 issued by the fifth respondent removing the petitioner from 'Mid Day Meal Programme' and appointing the sixth respondent as new agency of the fifth respondent School without assigning any reason and without issuing any notice as arbitrary and illegal.
The case of the petitioner is that it is the organizer of Self Help Group (DWAKRA Group) namely "Varalakshmi Swyam Sakthi Sangham" and the petitioner group has been chosen for participation in Mid-Day Meals to the students of the fifth respondent School from 2013-2018 and again from October 2019 to November 2020; having recognized their services, the fourth respondent has chosen the petitioner's agency for Mid-Day Meal from 10.10.2019 in the fifth respondent School and since then they are preparing the food without any complaint whatsoever; Schools were closed from March 2020 due to Corona Virus pandemic, but to the surprise of the petitioner, basing on the oral instructions of the fourth respondent and basing on the alleged complaint given by the students of 6th to 9th class, a parents committee meeting was conducted on 12.08.2020 and it resolved to appoint the sixth respondent as a new agency in the place of the petitioner on 12.08.2020; the letter addressed by the students does not contain any date and a bear reading of the same it shows that the same is prepared by someone who is inimical to the petitioner; pursuant to the resolution of the parents committee, the fourth respondent issued proceedings dated 12.09.2000 stating that it was decided that the petitioner is not eligible to implement the Mid Day 2 Meal programme and that the sixth respondent is appointed to conduct the programme; the said proceeding is not served on the petitioner, however a notice dated 02.11.2020 signed by the fourth respondent was served on the petitioner by the fifth respondent on 04.11.2020; immediately, petitioner sent a representation on 04.11.2020 to the fifth respondent, but so far no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, challenging the said proceedings dated 12.09.2020 issued by the fourth respondent and the consequential notice dated 02.11.2020 issued by the fifth respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that questioning the action of the State authorities in terminating the services of the Mid-Day Meal Implementing Agencies and Cooks etc., batch of Writ Petitions were filed in W.P.Nos.8037 of 2019 and batch, and this Court dismissed all the said Writ Petitions.
All the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition were also raised in the said batch of Writ Petitions including the plea that notices were not served on the petitioners therein before terminating their services and that the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002 were also not followed. This Court, by a common order dated 31.10.2019, dismissed all the said Writ Petitions by observing that no enforceable legal/statutory right is available to the petitioners therein to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Apart from the said batch of Writ Petitions, this Court in Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy Oriental Educational Committee v. The 3 District Level Committee for Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Cuddapah1 and Rudramamba Mahila Dwacra Group, Shiva Nagar, Warangal v. Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of A.P.2 held that the petitioners under the Mid Day Meals Scheme do not have vested legal right which is enforceable by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In D. Ameena Bee v. Commissioner, Anantapur Municipality, Anantapur3, a Division Bench of this Court also held as follows.
"3. That the predominant purpose of engaging the services of the implementing agencies is to entrust them with the work of cooking so that the scheme is properly implemented and the students derive the benefit of the scheme. It is meant for the welfare and benefit of the students. Even the proceedings of the District Collector, referred to hereinabove, does not confer any right upon anyone of the implementing agencies. The implementing agencies are not expected to convert this scheme into any profit making ventures. May be in the process, the actual personnel involved may derive semblance of wage, but the scheme is not intended to provide any employment to any individual or implementing agencies. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the proceedings of the District Collector approving the list of identified implementing agencies by the Municipality itself does not confer any indefeasible right upon any one of the implementing agencies or individuals consisting of such implementing agencies."4. ........................
1 2003(2) APLJ 323 2 2004(6) ALD 157 3 2005 (2) ALT 576 4 "5. The impugned proceedings, dated 17-11-2004, which is challenged before us, in our considered opinion, in no manner affects any of the guaranteed rights of the appellants herein. The order under which the appellants herein were entrusted with a duty of cooking the mid- day meal itself does not confer any right and therefore, the question of taking of any right, as such, does not arise. The impugned decision obviously appears to have been taken by the Municipality pursuant to the instructions of the Government, which itself is in the realm of the policy decision. Implementation of schemes may depend upon variety of circumstances and the administration learns by experience and there is nothing wrong in changing the manner of implementation of the schemes by involving some more implementing agencies. The appellants cannot claim any monopoly as implementing agencies and insist that the same number of students/schools must be entrusted continuously and no other new implementing agency should be allowed to be intruded into in implementing the scheme." In Rachakonda Nagaiah v. Government of AP., rep., by the District Collector, Nalgonda4, this Court held as follows.
"No one can seek a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one, suffering a legal grievance, can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, para 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwah MANU/SC/0400/1973 : (1974) 3 SCC 220; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed MANU/SC/0011/1975 : (1976) 1 SCC 671;4
2013(3) ALT 377 5 Ferris: Extraordinary Legal Remedies, para 198; and Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0540/1976 : (1977) 1 SCC 486). In order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority, and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (Subash Chander Marwaha MANU/SC/0400/1973 : (1974) 3 SCC 220; Dr Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College MANU/SC/0098/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 1210)"
With regard to the issuance of notice, this Court in WP No.8037 of 2019 and batch, dated 31.10.2019 held as follows.
"In addition, the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. As the petitioners do not have legally enforceable right, granting of a relief only on the ground that they are not giving an opportunity of being heard and the same would be an empty formality.
If the rules of natural justice are flouted, the option left to this Court is to remand the matter back or to set aside the orders and direct a de novo hearing. In view of the fact that two single Judges and one Division Bench have held that the petitioners do not have an enforceable right and that these decisions are policy decisions, this Court holds that a further opportunity of hearing will not serve any useful purpose (Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise (2015 (8) SCC 519)."
As seen from the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the learned single Judge, the petitioner does not have any enforceable right to be continued as a Mid Day Meal Organizer, as the impugned decision is in the realm of policy decision. 6
In view of the same and following the above referred judgments, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 08th February 2021 Nsr 7 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Petition No.22945 of 2020 Date: 08th February 2021 Nsr