Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1273 (TS)

Ekalavya Mahila Group v. State of Telangana

2025-10-23

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER: SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 5. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a Writ Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the respondent No.4 impugned proceeding order vide No. 421/B4/2025, dated. 27-06-2025 by terminate the services of the present MDM Agency at Govt Girl High School, Narayanpet and recommended to engage and avail the services of the new MDM agency without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and also in violation of Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the service of petitioner agency MDM at Govt Girl High School, Narayanpet and pass…” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under: i) The petitioner, Ekalavya Mahila Group, a Self Help Group from Narayanpet, was appointed as the Mid-Day Meal (MDM) agency for Government Girls High School, Narayanpet, vide proceedings No. B/7337/2008, dated 30.11.2008, issued by the 5 th respondent in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25.11.2002. Since then, the petitioner has been rendering uninterrupted services for over 17 years without any complaint regarding the quality or performance of its duties. ii) However, the 4 th respondent issued proceedings vide No. 421/B4/2025, dated 27.06.2025, terminating the services of the petitioner agency and recommending engagement of a new MDM agency, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit its explanation. iii) Despite submitting representations dated 04.06.2025 and 22.06.2025 to the 4 th and 6 th respondents seeking reconsideration of the termination and continuation of services, no response was received from the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The impugned proceedings vide Re.No.421/ B4/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 of the respondent No.4-the District Educational Officer, Narayanpet, , is extracted hereunder: PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, NARAYANPET Present: M. Govinda Raju MSC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The impugned proceedings vide Re.No.421/ B4/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 of the respondent No.4-the District Educational Officer, Narayanpet, , is extracted hereunder: PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, NARAYANPET Present: M. Govinda Raju MSC. M.Ed.Ph.d Re. NO. 421/B4/2025 Date: 27.06.2025 Sub: School Education-Culpable negligence of duties and lack of abidance of SOP in the preparation of food for children at Govt Girls HS Narayanpet District Termination of servicer of MDM Agency-order-issued. Ref: 1) Complaints received from students, parents teachers and Head Master on 27.06.2025 2) Instructions given by the of the Collector & Dist Magistrate Narayanpet. Where it has come the notice with respect to the complaints received from parerits, students and teachers that the food served to school children at Govt Girls High School Narayanpet was not prepared in a hygienic manner and It was also prepared without abiding to the preparatory protocol (S0P) and menu of MDM scheme After careful observation and examination of the available and having due regard to the circumstances of the case, are satisfied, and it is resolved and decided as per the G.O.No 94 to terminate the services of the present MDM Agency at Govt Girls HS Narayanpet and recommended that it is necessary to engage and avail the services of the new MDM Agency. The Headmaster Govt Girls HS Narayanpet is instructed to engage the new MDM Agency to the Govt Girls High School Narayanpet for quality food provision. District Educational Officer Narayanpet To Copy to the CCH agency Govt (Girls) HS Narayanpet Copy to the Headmaster, Govt Girls HS Narayanpet to take necessary action. Copy submitted to the Hon. Collector & District Magistrate, Narayanpet for Kind information. Copy submitted to the Director, School Education, TG, Hyderabad for favor of information. B) The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P.Nos. 9800 of 2013 and batch, is extracted hereunder: “15. Till the State Government takes appropriate steps, as above, it is necessary to issue certain directions as enumerated hereunder to be implemented by the respondent authorities. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions: 1. 9800 of 2013 and batch, is extracted hereunder: “15. Till the State Government takes appropriate steps, as above, it is necessary to issue certain directions as enumerated hereunder to be implemented by the respondent authorities. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions: 1. The State Government shall take immediate steps to issue appropriate rules/guidelines with respect to the implementation of the decisions of the review committees, at all levels, including for replacement of an existing agency by a new implementing agency. 2. Till the Government frames appropriate rules/guidelines, as directed above, all the respondent authorities, at all levels, shall follow the directions as under: a) Wherever the concerned review committee notices deficiency in the functioning of the existing implementing agency, the concerned review committee shall communicate its views and suggestions to the respective committees entrusted with selection of an implementing agency. b) On receipt of recommendations of the review committee, the respective committees, entrusted with selection of an implementing agency, shall notify such deficient implementing agency and consider the explanation of such deficient implementing agency in its meeting and shall take appropriate decision either to continue the implementing agency by giving opportunity to rectify the deficiencies or to replace the existing agency by a new agency. c) If a decision is taken to replace the existing agency, the same procedure as envisaged in clause (6) of the guidelines shall be followed for selecting a new implementing agency to replace the existing agency. d) In all such cases where the existing implementing agency is replaced by a new agency, such aggrieved implementing agency shall be entitled to seek reconsideration of such decision before the Nodal Officer in terms of the guidelines and the decision of the Nodal Officer shall be final and binding on all the parties. 3. In all these cases, as stated above, this Court has already passed interim orders and wherever the existing implementing agencies are continued in terms of the said interim order, they shall continue to operate the mid-day meal programme. However, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate further action in terms of the directions hereinabove. 4. 3. In all these cases, as stated above, this Court has already passed interim orders and wherever the existing implementing agencies are continued in terms of the said interim order, they shall continue to operate the mid-day meal programme. However, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate further action in terms of the directions hereinabove. 4. In all these cases, wherever a new agency is appointed to replace existing agency, the grievance of the new agency shall be considered by the respective committees, which are entrusted with selection of implementing agency, who shall, thereafter, follow the procedure prescribed hereinabove and after hearing the existing implementing agency, take appropriate decision in the matter relating to the continuation or otherwise of the existing implementing agency. Since the writ petitions are disposed of, as above, the contempt case, C.C.No.1336 of 2014, stands dismissed. As a sequel, the vacate stay petitions and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” C) The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 and in particular, paragraph Nos.9 and 10 are extracted hereunder: “9. In reply to Para 2, it is submitted that the allegations made are false and baseless. The petitioner was not terminated arbitrarily. The agency repeatedly made a mistake, as such issued a Show Cause Notice on 22.02.2025 but failed to rectify the deficiencies. Inspections revealed that the Petitioner agency did not follow the MDM Menu, supplied only rice and dal, and neglected egg distribution. Hence, the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2025 are valid and passed in public interest. There is no violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution. 10. In reply to Para 3, it is submitted that the fact of appointment under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25.11.2002, and proceedings dated 30.11.2008 is admitted. However, it is submitted that such appointment does not confer a perpetual right. Continuation depends on satisfactory performance and compliance with the Mid-Day Meal Scheme.” DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON: 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the respondent No.4-the District Educational Officer, Narayanpet vide Rc. No. 421/B4/2025, dated 27.06.2025, is in clear violation of the specific guidelines issued by this Court in its judgment dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P. No. 9800 of 2013 and batch (referred to and extracted above). 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the respondent No.4-the District Educational Officer, Narayanpet vide Rc. No. 421/B4/2025, dated 27.06.2025, is in clear violation of the specific guidelines issued by this Court in its judgment dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P. No. 9800 of 2013 and batch (referred to and extracted above). 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the impugned order is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, and no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner regarding the alleged irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, issued by the District Educational Officer, Narayanpet, refers to complaints which are also dated 27.06.2025, purportedly received from students, parents, teachers, and headmasters on the very same day. Therefore, on these two grounds alone, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, particularly in paragraphs 9 and 10, contends that the petitioner failed to render satisfactory performance to comply with the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and therefore, the impugned proceedings were issued in public interest, as the petitioner agency failed to adhere to the M.D.M. menu and had supplied only rice and dal, and neglected egg distribution. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 8. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that though the impugned order refers to complaints allegedly received from students, parents, teachers, and headmasters on 27.06.2024, the petitioner was admittedly not put on notice regarding the allegations levelled in the said complaints. Furthermore, the impugned order, as borne on record, had in fact been passed on 27.06.2024 itself, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. I t is also relevant to note that the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 is issued in clear violation of the specific instructions issued in order of this Court dated 13.12.2014 passed in W.P. No. 9800 of 2013 and batch. 9. I t is also relevant to note that the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 is issued in clear violation of the specific instructions issued in order of this Court dated 13.12.2014 passed in W.P. No. 9800 of 2013 and batch. 9. A bare perusal of the said specific directions clearly indicates that upon receipt of such complaints, respondent No.4 was required to inform the petitioner about the nature of the complaints and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the same. 10. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit, particularly the averments relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 in paragraphs 9 and 10, clearly indicates that the petitioner allegedly failed to follow the MDM menu and that the petitioner–agency had supplied only rice and dal, while neglecting egg distribution, and therefore, the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is stated to be in public interest. This Court opines that the said plea is untenable, as the same represents a conclusion arrived at by respondent No.4 without putting the petitioner–agency on notice regarding the alleged irregularities and without conducting a due enquiry, which is in clear violation of the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 under G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002, as well as the specific directions issued by this Court vide its common order dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P. Nos. 9800 of 2013 and batch. A bare perusal of clause (d) of Para ‘2’ of the Judgment of this Court dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.9800 of 2013 and batch indicates that petitioner is entitled to seek reconsideration of the impugned decision as per law as per the guidelines in force as on date. 11. A bare perusal of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 24.11.2002 clearly indicates that the Government had issued orders for the implementation of the Mid-Day Meal (cooking programme) for children of Classes I to VII in all Government and aided primary and upper primary schools in the State. 12. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the 4 th respondent clearly indicates that respondent No.4 has acted in clear violation of the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 24.11.2002, as well as the directions of this Court vide order dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P. No. 9800 of 2013 and batch. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the 4 th respondent clearly indicates that respondent No.4 has acted in clear violation of the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 24.11.2002, as well as the directions of this Court vide order dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P. No. 9800 of 2013 and batch. In the light of the discussion and conclusion as arrived at paras 5 to 13 as above, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein. 13. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The impugned order of the respondent No.4 vide R.C.No.421/ B4/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 which admittedly is an order passed without issuing notice to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 in particular, paragraph Nos.9 and 10 (referred to and extracted above, e) G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002, f) The earlier orders of this Court dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.9800 of 2013 and batch (referred to and extracted above) The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 vide R.C.No.421/ B4/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 is set aside. I t is, however, observed that respondent No.4 is at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the relevant guidelines in force as on date and in strict compliance with the specific directives issued in the common order dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P. Nos. 9800 of 2013 and batch. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.