V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions various DWCRA Groups (Development of Women and Children in rural Areas) are petitioners. They assail the proceedings dated 30. 6. 2004 of the District educational Officer (DEO), Warangal, whereby and whereunder as many as 26 private aided primary schools and upper primary schools were identified as implementing agencies for Midday Meal programme in the aided schools in the district with effect from 1. 7. 2004. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners in brief is that in November, 2002, the petitioners were selected as implementing agencies for midday Meal Programme in various educational institutions including private aided schools in Warangal District and without any allegation against them, they were removed in unfair manner. They also allege that on 20. 6. 2004, the DEO issued a notice to the petitioners, requiring them to show-cause as to why they should not be discharged as implementing agencies with effect from 30. 6. 2004. Though they submitted explanations, they were not duly considered and without any reasons, the impugned order was passed. ( 3 ) IN all these matters, this Court while admitting these Writ Petitions on 14. 7. 2004, 12. 7. 2004 and 16. 7. 2004 respectively passed interim orders suspending the proceedings. Some of the private aided educational institutions, which were identified as implementing agencies filed miscellaneous applications seeking impleadment in the matters. They have also filed applications for vacating the interim order. When these matters were listed before this Court, the matters were heard finally on 10. 9. 2004 with the consent of the parties. Again today, the matters are listed and this Court heard the submissions of learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri B. Ravinder Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader. ( 4 ) SRI A. Prabhakara Rao, and sri K. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners attacked the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same is violative of principles of natural justice and that the same is bad for non-disclosure of reasons. These contentions are refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader and sri S. V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the impleaded respondents. ( 5 ) BY impugned order, dated 30. 6,2004, as noticed supra as many as 26 private aided primary schools and upper primary schools were identified as implementing agencies. Curiously none of them has been impleaded as party respondent. These contentions are refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader and sri S. V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the impleaded respondents. ( 5 ) BY impugned order, dated 30. 6,2004, as noticed supra as many as 26 private aided primary schools and upper primary schools were identified as implementing agencies. Curiously none of them has been impleaded as party respondent. As some of the impleaded parties represent all aided schools in a representative capacity, the matter is being considered on merits. It has not been denied that by a communication dated 20. 6. 2004, the petitioners were informed that as per Government orders in G. O. Ms. No. 94, Education (SE-Prog. 1) Department, dated 25. 11. 2003, when the Midday Meal programme is implemented in private aided schools, the Governing Body of private aided schools is responsible for implementing the scheme and therefore, the petitioners were asked as to why they should not be discharged. The petitioners in W. P. No. 11773 of 2004 submitted an explanation on the same day. The petitioners in other two writ petitions submitted joint explanation on 30. 6. 2004 and the same was allegedly received by the office of DEO. ( 6 ) FROM a reading of the impugned order, dated 30. 6. 2004, it becomes clear that the office of the DEO has not received any objections from any of the DWCRA groups of Hanamkonda and Warangal, thus allegation made by the petitioners that they submitted explanation to the show- cause notice, dated 20. 6. 2004 therefore stands disproved. Indeed admittedly the petitioners in W. P. Nos. l 1829and 12273 of 2004 made a representation only on 30. 6. 2004 and therefore, in all probability, the said representation was made after passing of the impugned order. Insofar as the W. P. No. 11773 of 2004 is concerned, the petitioners have not placed any material before this Court - by way of postal acknowledgment or postal receipt or official acknowledgment - in support of their contention that they submitted explanation on 20. 6. 2004 itself. When the DEO informed all the petitioners that having regard to the guidelines issued by the Government in the above said GO, they will be discharged from 30. 6. 2004, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners to submit their explanation immediately but they did not do so. 6. 2004 itself. When the DEO informed all the petitioners that having regard to the guidelines issued by the Government in the above said GO, they will be discharged from 30. 6. 2004, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners to submit their explanation immediately but they did not do so. For the lapse on their part, the DEO cannot be blamed nor the impugned order can be invalidated. ( 7 ) SRI S. V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the impleaded respondents has taken me through the G. O. Ms. No. 94, whereby and whereunder the Government while communicating their decision to implement midday Meal Programme by giving hot cooked food in primary and upper primary schools in the State directed all District collectors to release the amounts to the concerned agencies for implementation of the scheme as per the guidelines annexed to the said order. The guidelines for implementation of Midday Meal Programme (hereafter called the guidelines ) in annexure to Government Order are non-statutory in nature. They are formulated by Government essentially to enable the Commissioner of school Education, District Collectors and district Educational Authorities to implement the Midday Meal Programme without any hazards. These guidelines are essentially instructions to be followed by all concerned implementing officials. They do not, in any manner, confer any right on an implementation agency either for being identified as such or for entrusting the work. ( 8 ) A per Paragraph No. 5 of the guidelines, in rural areas, the Mandal revenue Officer (MRO) has to identify dwcra/self Help Groups/sec/other agencies like temple, NGOs, the Charitable trusts/group of Parents as implementing agencies. In urban areas, a Committee headed by the MRO has to identify Community development Societies (CDS)/ngo/urban shgs/dwcua/sec and other agencies, whereas in twin cities Catering Contractors can also be identified as implementing agencies if there are no CDS/dwcua/shg/ charitable Trusts etc. , coming forward as implementing agencies. Paragraph No. 6 contains procedure for selection of implementing agencies. Paragraph No. 8 deals with constitution of Committees at State level, District level, Municipal/municipal corporation level and Mandal level. It also gives the modalities for constitution of the executing Committee for supervision of implementing the scheme. In private aided schools, however Governing Body formed as per relevant statutory rules shall be responsible for implementing Midday Meal programme. ( 9 ) A reading of Paragraph Nos. It also gives the modalities for constitution of the executing Committee for supervision of implementing the scheme. In private aided schools, however Governing Body formed as per relevant statutory rules shall be responsible for implementing Midday Meal programme. ( 9 ) A reading of Paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 would clinchingly show that either for the mro or for the Committee headed by the mro, it is competent to identify the implementing agencies only in relation to government Schools under the local authorities. Insofar as private aided schools are concerned, the MRO or the Committee headed by the MRO has no authority whatsoever to identify any agency. If midday Meal Programme is implemented in a private school, governing body itself has to be identified as the implementing agency. The Government order itself provides for that. If any private educational institution or institutions are coming forward in implementing the Midday Meal Scheme, it would be competent for the DEO to entrust to the governing body and there is no element of selection of a suitably cooking agency, the DWCRA, DWCUA, SHG and the like. Further, as already observed, the midday Meal Programme is a non-statutory scheme and the guidelines do not confer any right on the petitioners. The very selection of the petitioners as agency for implementation of the programme in private primary schools and upper primary schools by the Committee headed by the mro was impermissible and unauthorized. It is therefore always open for the authority appointing the petitioners to withdraw such appointments. As observed above, the petitioners services as cooking agencies are discontinued only on the ground that their initial engagement was contrary to the guidelines issued in G. O. Ms. No. 94. In such an event, it is not necessary to hear the petitioners before they discontinued. A reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh chandra Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur university, AIR 1990 SC 2023 , wherein it was held: when, therefore, the services of the appellants are to be terminated in view of the change in the position of law and not on account of the demerits or misdemeanor of individual candidates, it is not necessary to hear the individuals before their services are terminated. The rule of audi alterant pattern does not apply in such cases and, therefore, there is no breach of the principles of natural justice. The rule of audi alterant pattern does not apply in such cases and, therefore, there is no breach of the principles of natural justice. In the result, we are of the view that there is no merit in this case. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed in the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) IN these cases, the DEO has followed the principles of fairness by issuing notice to petitioners. If me petitioners fail to make a representation before 30. 6. 2004, the same does not in any manner vitiate the impugned proceedings. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders passed in three cases stand vacated forthwith.