Amerla Suhasini vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1302 AP

         HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                     Writ Petition No.6540 of 2020
Order:

       This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings of the third

respondent dated 30.11.2019, removing the petitioner from the Mid-Day

Meals agency in the MPP School, Polavaram (Kothapeta) village, Chatrai

Mandal, Krishna district, without following the due procedure, as illegal

and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that she is the member of Malleswari

DWACRA Group, Polavaram village and she was appointed as cooking

agency for Mid-Day Meals Programme in MPP School, Polavaram village,

Chatrai Mandal, Krishna district in the year 2014 and since then she has

been working as cooking agency without any complaint; while so, on a

complaint/representation received against her, the fifth respondent

issued a show cause notice dated 16.09.2019 calling the petitioner to

submit her explanation and in reply to the said notice she submitted her

explanation on 18.09.2019; however, without considering the same, the

third respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2019

removing the petitioner from the agency of Mid-Day Meals cooking.

Hence, she filed the present Writ Petition.

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 no

opportunity was given to 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

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

2003(2) APLJ 323

2004(6) ALD 157

2005 (2) ALT 576

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. ........................

"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; 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 and giving opportunity to

the petitioners, 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.

2013(3) ALT 377

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 cooking agent, as the impugned

decision is in the realm of policy decision.

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:03.03.2021 Nsr

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Writ Petition No.6540 of 2020

Date:03.03.2021 Nsr