Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Education ... vs The State Of A.P. on 22 August, 2024
APHC010951132017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 40760/2017
Between:
Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Education Society and ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. C SUNIL KUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
The Court made the following order:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of mandumus declaring the action of the
3rd Respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.5558/E1-
2017 Dated 06-11-2017 in restricting the Mid-day meal
programme to classes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the petitioners
schools respectively and other schools in the District as
illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law contrary to G.O.Ms.94 dated
25-11-2002, further instructions of the state government
extending till Classes 10th contrary to the said scheme
introduced by the Government of India and infrengement of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequently and set
aside the proceedings Rc.No.5558/E1-2017 Dated 06-11-
2017 by further directing the Respondents to continue the
scheme as per the existing scheme in force that is carried in
all other Districts and pass such other order or orders..."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Institutions and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The present writ petition is filed assailing the action of the
respondents in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.5558/E1-2017 dated
06.11.2017 in restricting the mid-day meal programme to classes
6,7,8,9 and 10 of the petitioner's institutions, respectively other schools
and which act of the respondents is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.94 dated
25.11.2002 and also voiced that it amounts to infringement of Article 14
of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside the
above proceedings with a direction to the respondents to continue the
scheme as per the existing scheme in force that is carried in all other
districts.
4. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition
that SBNRM Upper Primary School has been upgraded as High School
in the year 1993-94 and the school is having permanent recognition for
6th and 7th classes with aid and temporary recognition for 8th, 9th and
10th classes. There exist 4 Secondary Grade Posts, 2 B.Ed posts and 2
Pandit posts are under aid. The above posts have been sanctioned
vide G.O.Ms.No.8 Education, dated 03.01.1992. The petitioner-
institutions are partly aided institutions and is having 203 students
consisting of 44 students in 6th class, 44 students in 7th class, 44
students in 8th class, 38 students in 9th class and 33 students in 10th
class.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Institutions contends that if
one aided post is there in the school, the entire school has to be treated
as aided school and mid-day meals have to be provided to unaided
classes also in the school, in pursuant to the guidelines issued by the
Mandal Educational Officer.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the counter
filed in W.P.(PIL)No.341 of 2015. As per the counter certain instructions
were issued by the Government to the DISE, how to treat the unaided
and aided schools, when implementing the mid-day meal scheme and
also relied on the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.23783 of
2018, wherein this Court by an order dated 28.11.2019 directed the
respondents to extend the mid-day meals scheme to the students of 8th
to 10th classes of the petitioner's institutions.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
learned counsel for the petitioner cannot rely on the counter filed in
W.P.(PIL)No.341 of 2015 and as per the guidelines issued in
G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002, the scope of the scheme is to provide
mid-day meals to the children pertaining to classes 1 to 5 in primary
schools. The benefit of the scheme was extended to the children in
case of schools where classes 6 and 7 are part of the primary schools.
And further argued that the mid-day meal scheme was also provided to
the children of 6th and 7th classes under the management of local
bodies, private aided management schools. Whereas, in the present
case the petitioner institutions are seeking to provide mid-day meals to
students of classes 8, 9 and 10 and as per the supra referred G.O. this
scheme was not available or applicable for the students of classes 8 to
10. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Already, this Court has taken a decision in W.P.No.23783 of
2018 dated 28.11.2018 directing the respondents to extend mid-day
meals scheme to students of 8th to 10th classes. The said order is not
assailed by way of any intra-court appeal. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to follow the same judgment to the present case as well.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to provide mid-day meals to students of 8th to 10th classes.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
Date: 22.08.2024
KBN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40760 of 2017
Date: 22.08.2024
KBN
