Judgment :- The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Quo-warranto to call for the records of R.3/The District Collector, Tirunelveli dated 7.5.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.206 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP) dt. 13.9.1996 and to set aside the order of appointment dt.7.5.1997 insofar as it relates to 6th respondent/Tmt.K.Santhi as it contravenes the provisions of the said G.O.Ms.No.206, dt.13.9.1996. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Minority institution and they are running the school from the year 1920 and it was recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1978 and is also running the Nutritious Meal Programme and they are eligible to appoint Nutritious Meal Organisers as per G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare Department, dt. 3.11.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.147 Social Welfare and Nutritious Project Scheme dt. 18.6.1993 etc. along with the approval of the District Collector; that as such for appointment of a Nutritious Meal Organiser, proposals were sent by the petitioner to the third respondent; that instead of selecting the Nutritious Meal Organiser from the proposed candidates, the sixth respondent was appointed by the third respondent, the District Collector. Aggrieved, the petitioner School has come forward to file the above Writ Petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 besides generally denying the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, they would further submit that according to the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.294, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP I) Department, dated 27.10.1993, for each minority/non-minority school, the Manager or the Correspondent will send a panel of 5 names to the Collector for appointment as Nutritious Meal Organisers following the existing conditions of appointment; that the Collector shall give approval to any of the names recommended by the Management of the Schools and Communicate his approval to the Management of the concerned school and thereafter the management will issue appointment orders. 4. 4. The respondents 1 to 4 would further submit that subsequently, the Selection Committee constituted as per G.O.Ms.SNo.294, Social Welfare and Noon Meals Programme, dated 21.10.1993 was modified as per G.O.Ms.No.206, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 13.9.1996; that accordingly (i) the Personal Assistant (NMP) to Collector is the Chairman (ii) the Commissioner of the concerned Panchayat Union is a Member (iii) the Correspondent/Headmaster of the concerned school is another member; that the appointment of Nutritious Meals Organisers are to be made only by the above Committee as ordered by the Government and the appointment of the Noon Meals Organiser under reference was made only by the above Committee strictly observing the Government instruction. 5. The respondents 1 to 4 would further submit that the Management of minority schools are not vested with the administrative powers of Nutritious Meal Programme like appointment of teacher for minority schools since the said scheme was entirely run by the Government and the entire expenses for the scheme are borne by the Government; that as the Correspondent/Headmaster is one of the members in the Selection Committee, he was asked to attend the Selection Committee Meeting to be held on 17.4.1997; that though the fact of meeting intimation was acknowledged by him, he did not attend the meeting; that no violation of Government instructions have been made as alleged by the petitioner as the fact of the reconstitution of the selection committee was informed to him well in advance, further asking him to attend the selection committee meeting. 6. The respondents 1 to 4 would further submit that as per orders of Government in force at that time candidates for appointment of Noon Meal Organisers shall be selected only from the list received from the District Employment Office and there is no need to consider the panel of candidates sent by him; that the selection of candidates made for the post of Nutritious Meal was approved by the Collector and the appointment order was also issued in the name of the Collector. 7. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, besides denying the general allegations of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, she would further submit that the appointment of the Noon Meals Organiser was made only by the Selection Committee strictly observing instructions of the Government; that further the Management of the minority schools are not vested with the administrative powers of Nutritious Meal Programme like appointment of teacher for minority schools. Further sailing with certain averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 she would pray for dismissal of the above writ petition. 8. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents as well would reiterate only the pleadings of the petition and the counter affidavits filed with no new fact or circumstance or law being brought forth and therefore, tracing the same would only result in repetition of the pleadings and hence this Court is of the view to consider the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded and in further consideration of the materials made available on records, it is made very clear on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 a selection committee was constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.294 Social Welfare and Noon Meals Programme, dated 21.10.1993 and the same was modified as per G.O.Ms.No.206, Social welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 13.9.1996, according to which a committee has to be constituted consisting of the Personal Assistant (NMP) to the Collector as the Chairman and the Commissioner of the concerned Panchayat Union as a member and the Correspondent/Headmaster of the concerned school as yet another member in order to appoint the Nutritious Meals Organisers and the Noon Meals Organiser under reference has to be made only by the said committee strictly observing the Government instructions in which the Correspondent/Headmaster has a vital role to play and since the said scheme was entirely run by the Government borne by the entire expenses, the petitioner should have co-operated with the administration in the process of the appointment of the Noon Meals Organisers. But on the contrary in spite of the petitioner being invited to attend to the meeting held on 17.4.1997 they did not attend to the meeting and therefore, not for any violation of the rule or the procedures established by law the respondents 1 to 5 could be blamed. 9. But on the contrary in spite of the petitioner being invited to attend to the meeting held on 17.4.1997 they did not attend to the meeting and therefore, not for any violation of the rule or the procedures established by law the respondents 1 to 5 could be blamed. 9. Moreover, the constitution of the committee is made with equal representation of the Revenue Administration, Local body and the Correspondent or Headmaster of the concerned school for which the appointment is to be effected, it is an healthy trend and since the same is made falling in line and in tune with the expected norms of law it would only fall under reasonable classification arrived at on the part of the Government in formulating the G.O. in which it has only done a yeoman service to the Nutritious Meal Programme particularly in the appointment of Noon Meal Organisers and therefore, there is absolutely no necessity on the part of this Court to either do away from the G.O. or to question the validity of the appointment of the 6th respondent for the post of Noon Meal Organiser to the petitioner's school and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above writ petition does not merit acceptance and the same is dismissed as such; (ii) however, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.