WP/22004/2014 of Golla Lakshmidevamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal on 30 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEENPRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

WRIT PETITION No.9800 of 2013, CC.No.1336 of 2014 and WP.Nos.146,2917, 7157, 16570, 16877, 17036, 17037, 17416, 17417, 17752, 17779,18000, 18005, 18093, 18444, 18510, 18538, 18540, 18748, 19369, 20511,20221, 20551, 20711, 21212, 20861, 20804, 21014, 21286, 21475, 21615,21920, 22058, 22498, 16882, 34315, 30040, 22004, 21180 and 23171 of2014

BETWEEN

J. Ramanamma and others.

AND

... PETITIONERS

The District Collector, Anantapur District and others.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA

MR. M. KARIBASAIAH

MR. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTHY

MR. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEM

MR. N. RANGA REDDY

MR. P. NARAHARI BABU

MR. B. VIJAYA BHASKER

MR. S.D. GOWD

MR. K.S. MURTHY

MR. K. NARSI REDDY

MR. INENI VENKATA PRASAD

MR. M. JAYARAM REDDY

MR. KOPPULA GOPAL

MR. BALARAMI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION

GP FOR REVENUE

GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

MR. T. BHEEMANNA

MR. G. ELISHA

MR. C. VENKAT YADAV

MR. SESHADRI GOALLA

MR. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY

MR. B. SARVOTHAM REDDY

MRS. P. RAJESWARI

The Court made the following:COMMON ORDER:

In this batch of cases, various writ petitions are filed by the agencies,which were appointed to implement the Mid-Day Meal programmeenvisaged by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 Education (SE-PROG-I) Department dated 25.11.2002. The common grievance of thepetitioners, who have approached this court by the present batch of writpetitions, is that while they are functioning as implementing agencies forseveral years, the official respondents are trying to discharge the petitioner-agencies and appoint new agency in their place.

2. In almost all the writ petitions, this Court had passed similar interimorder pending the writ petitions to the effect that since the petitioners havebeen allowed to supply mid-day meals to the school concerned, they may bepermitted to continue to do so, so long as no specific complaint about thepoor quality of food being prepared and supplied by them is received.

3. The grievance of the petitioners also is that while replacing the existingimplementing agency by a new agency, no notice is given to the existingimplementing agency and thereby, opportunity to the implementing agency toexplain the deficiencies or irregularities, if any, is denied and straightaway orders replacing them are passed. Wherever such orders of the official respondents are questioned, a contention with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is raisedand it is contended that when an adverse conclusion is reached against anexisting implementing agency, the official respondents are bound to followthe basic principles of natural justice and the existing agency cannot bereplaced by a new agency without any hearing being afforded to the existing agency and without affording them opportunity to even rectify or fulfill thedeficiencies, if any, pointed out with regard to its working.

4. The common grievance in this batch of writ petitions was to asubstantial extent redressed by orders of this Court in WP.No.22120 of 2014and batch dated 05.09.2014 and WP.No.18171 of 2014 and batch dated08.09.2014. However, notwithstanding the said orders, similar grievance ofthe petitioners in the present batch of case is ventilated in these writpetitions.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learnedGovernment Pleader for Education and also the learned counsel,

who filed vacate stay petitions in some of the writ petitions on behalf of thesubstituted implementing agency, who claim that in view of seriousallegations of deficiency and quality of food prepared by the existing agency,the implementing agency has been replaced by selecting the new agencyand as such, they claim that on account of the interim order of this Courtthey have been obstructed by the petitioners from functioning asimplementing agency.

6. All these writ petitions are defended by the learned GovernmentPleader by contending that these writ petitions raise several factual disputesand that keeping in view the scheme of the Government underG.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002, referred to above, neither the petitionerscan claim that they are holding a civil post nor are entitled to any protectionunder the Civil Service Rules nor can claim any rights enforceable beforethis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Placing strongreliance on the scheme under the aforesaid G.O. and the guidelines framedby the Government for implementation of the scheme, it is claimed that thereare various authorities, which are entrusted with selection of implementingagency and for monitoring the work of such implementing agency at theMandal, Municipal and District level and that the implementing and monitoring agency has been looking after the working of the scheme throughthe committees formed at all these levels under the Chairmanship of theMandal Revenue Officer and the Joint Collector and District Collectorrespectively apart from that there are committees formed at Panchayat andSchool level, which reviews the implementation programme in the respectiveareas and monitor the functioning of such implementing agency.

7. Learned Government Pleader submitted that wherever the deficienciesare noticed in the functioning of the implementing agency appropriate stepsare taken to ensure that the students do not suffer and wherever it is foundnecessary, the implementing agencies have been replaced by new agenciesand thus, it is a continuous process where the implementation of the schemeis monitored. It is, further, submitted that the petitioners cannot claim thatonce appointed as an implementing agency they are entitled to continue assuch unless they are removed by a procedure prescribed by law. It issubmitted that the G.O. and the guidelines issued thereunder are beingstrictly implemented only from the point of view of serving the interest of thestudents so as to ensure that they get quality food as per the intent and thepurpose of the scheme.

8. In order to resolve the controversy, therefore, it is necessary, firstly, toexamine the scheme for implementation of the Mid-Day Meals (Cooked)Programme for children of classes I to VII in all the Government, Aided,Primary and Upper Primary Schools in the State. The Governments plansto achieve universalization of elementary education and with that objective,though much progress is achieved in enrolling school age children in theschools, retention of all of them in the school, having been found notcommensurate with the enrolments, it was envisaged by the Government ofAndhra Pradesh to implement Mid-Day Meal programme to ensure that aminimum of 300 calories and 8 to 12 gms of protein content in hot cookedgood is supplied to students of classes I to VII. The Government alsoframed guidelines for implementation of the scheme and entrusted

responsibility to all the District Collectors to utilize the amount earmarked forthe scheme to the concerned agencies for implementation of the scheme, asper the guidelines annexed.

The guidelines, therefore, are issued in terms of clause 10 of the said G.O.,for constitution of committees at various levels, for monitoring, supervision and review with regard to the implementation ofthe scheme.

GUIDELINES:

9. The guidelines issued provide that all children in classes I to V inprimary schools will be covered in the scheme and in case of those schoolswhere classes VI and VII are part of the primary schools, the children of classes VI and VII will also be provided mid-day meals, in the schools under the management of Government, local bodies andprivate aided managements are eligible for the benefit of this scheme. It isalso provided that the menu will be flexible and the District Collector will fixthe menu for the whole District or various parts of the District for differentdays of the week and the menu will be based upon the suggestive menudeveloped by the National Institute of Nutrition.

10. The implementing agencies have to be drawn in rural areas from theDwakra/Self Help groups/SEC and other agencies like NGO’s with proventrack record, charitable trusts and groups of parents in the same order ofpreference to be identified by the MRO. In urban areas, CommunityDevelopment Societies, NGO’s, Urban Self Help Groups, DWCEOA/SCCand other agencies like NGO’s with proven track record, charitable trustsand groups of parents in same order of preference to be identified by theCommittee headed by the MRO. For the twin cities of Hyderabad andSecunderabad, catering contracts can also be identified if no communitydevelopment societies or DWCEOA/SHG/Charitable trusts etc. comeforward to implement the scheme.

11. With regard to selection of implementing agency, it is provided that thatMRO shall issue advance programme for the village level meeting to beconducted and give wide publicity to the schedule.

The Panchayat Secretary shall organize the meeting and the Sarpanch, allward members, parent, self help groups and all other interested personswould be invited to the meeting apart from the Head Masters of the Schoolsand select the implementing agency after recording the minutes of themeeting. Based on such a decision, the Joint Collector would issueappropriate orders in favour of the implementing agency selected. Theguidelines, further, provide for functions of the implementing agency, whichare enumerated and the guidelines further provide for constitution ofcommittees for monitoring and supervision at State level and District level,which shall hold periodical meetings in a month to review the implementation.Further, for the review of the working also separate committees wereenvisaged at municipality and municipal corporation level, panchayat leveland at the school level as well as at mandal level in rural areas. So far asprivate aided schools are concerned, the Governing body shall beresponsible for implementing the mid-day meal scheme.

The guidelines, further, provide for other incidental matters, which, however,are not relevant for the purpose of present batch of cases.

12. It would immediately be noticed that while the detailed guidelines aregiven for selection of the implementing agency and its supervision as well asthe periodical review of its functioning, the guidelines are completely silentwith regard to the procedure to be followed for replacement of an agency,which is found to be deficient. On account of absence of any such procedureprescribed in terms of the aforesaid guidelines, the dispute including theclaims and counter claims, between the existing implementing agency andthe new implementing agency identified for replacing the existing agency,have been constantly arising as is evident from the two batch of casesalready dealt with by this Court, referred to above, as well as the present

batch of cases. The power of this Court on judicial review is invariablyinvoked in all such cases, as there is no mechanism provided in the G.O., orthe guidelines with regard to the manner in which the implementing agency,found to be deficient, is required to be replaced by a new agency and forresolving the dispute among them, if any.

13. As is evident each of these writ petitions, the existing implementingagencies claim that they have been implementing the responsibility ofpreparing and supplying mid-day meals to the student for the last severalyears but on account of incorrect and misleading complaints made againstthem, steps are being taken by the official respondents to replace them withnew agencies. Many of the petitioners claim that the complaints againstthem are neither genuine nor are based on reality of the existing situation butno attempt is made by the official respondents to verify the said complaintswith respect to the existing implementing agency and thereby, a decision istaken behind the back of the existing agency to replace the same with a newagency. As stated above, there is no mechanism provided under theguidelines to verify as to whether the complaints against the existingimplementing agencies are true and correct and it is also not possible for thisCourt to go into each and every case to ascertain the truth or otherwise ofsuch complaints, as that involves adjudication on disputed questions offacts. At the same time, however, the grievance of the existingimplementing agencies that they are being replaced without opportunity ofhearing to them also appears justified.

14. Keeping all the circumstances in mind, therefore, it is necessary toissue appropriate directions to the State Government to take such steps asare necessary by issuing appropriate, further, rules/guidelines providing forthe procedure for replacement of existing implementing agency with a newone and to provide procedural safeguards to the existing implementingagency so as to ensure that no injustice is done to the existing implementingagency and at the same time, the authority concerned is able to replace the deficient implementing agency with an appropriate new agency.

15. Till the State Government takes appropriate steps, as above, it is necessary to issue certain directions as enumerated hereunder to beimplemented by the respondent authorities.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

1. The State Government shall take immediate steps to issueappropriate rules/guidelines with respect to theimplementation of the decisions of the review committees, atall levels, including for replacement of an existing agency bya new implementing agency.2.Till the Government frames appropriate rules/guidelines, asdirected above, all the respondent authorities, at all levels,shall follow the directions as under:a)Wherever the concerned review committeenotices deficiency in the functioning of the existingimplementing agency, the concerned reviewcommittee shall communicate its views andsuggestions to the respective committeesentrusted with selection of an implementingagency.

Conclusion

b)On receipt of recommendations of the reviewcommittee, the respective committees, entrustedwith selection of an implementing agency, shallnotify such deficient implementing agency andconsider the explanation of such deficientimplementing agency in its meeting and shall takeappropriate decision either to continue theimplementing agency by giving opportunity torectify the deficiencies or to replace the existingagency by a new agency.c)If a decision is taken to replace the existingagency, the same procedure as envisaged inclause (6) of the guidelines shall be followed forselecting a new implementing agency to replacethe existing agency.

d)In all such cases where the existing implementingagency is replaced by a new agency, suchaggrieved implementing agency shall be entitled toseek reconsideration of such decision before theNodal Officer in terms of the guidelines and thedecision of the Nodal Officer shall be final andbinding on all the parties.agency is replaced by a new agency, suchaggrieved implementing agency shall be entitled toseek reconsideration of such decision before theNodal Officer in terms of the guidelines and thedecision of the Nodal Officer shall be final andbinding on all the parties.

3. In all these cases, as stated above, this Court has alreadypassed interim orders and wherever the existingimplementing agencies are continued in terms of the saidinterim order, they shall continue to operate the mid-day mealprogramme. However, the respondents shall be free to takeappropriate further action in terms of the directionshereinabove.passed interim orders and wherever the existingimplementing agencies are continued in terms of the saidinterim order, they shall continue to operate the mid-day mealprogramme. However, the respondents shall be free to takeappropriate further action in terms of the directionshereinabove.

4. In all these cases, wherever a new agency is appointed toreplace existing agency, the grievance of the new agencyshall be considered by the respective committees, which areentrusted with selection of implementing agency, who shall,thereafter, follow the procedure prescribed hereinabove andafter hearing the existing implementing agency, takeappropriate decision in the matter relating to the continuationor otherwise of the existing implementing agency.replace existing agency, the grievance of the new agencyshall be considered by the respective committees, which areentrusted with selection of implementing agency, who shall,thereafter, follow the procedure prescribed hereinabove andafter hearing the existing implementing agency, takeappropriate decision in the matter relating to the continuationor 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 staypetitions and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

December 30, 2014DSK

_____________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J