Karrimajji Ramu vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1464 AP

     HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                  Writ Petition No.11426 of 2020
Order:

      The action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in interfering with day-

to-day services of the petitioner, in implementing the Mid Day

Meal Scheme in Z.P. Boys High School, Badvel, Kadapa District,

is questioned in the Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

Pursuant to the meeting held on 22.11.2014 by the Mandal

Level Committee for selection of Mid Day Meal Agency for

Z.P.Boys High School, Badvel and, after considering the

applications received, the Committee opined that the petitioner is

eligible for being appointed as the Mid Day Meal Agency.

Respondent No.3, vide proceedings dated 22.11.2014, appointed

the petitioner as cooking agent for the Mid Day Meal Agency,

Z.P.Boys High School, Badvel. His grievance is that respondent

No.3 to 5 are interfering with his day-to-day services. Hence the

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

interfering with the services of the Mid-Day Meal Implementing

Agencies and Cooks etc., W.P.Nos.8037 of 2019 and batch were

filed, and this Court dismissed the said batch of 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 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

2003(2) APLJ 323

2004(6) ALD 157

2005 (2) ALT 576

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

2013(3) ALT 377

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 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:09.03.2021 usd