Telangana High Court
WA/2522/2005 of Bandineedi Venkateswarlu, Vs The Joint Collector, on 23 December 2005
WA.No.2522 of 2005 Per R. Subhash Reddy, J This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 15.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17050 of 2005 whereby he rejected the appellant’s challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 as implementing agency of Mid-
Per R. Subhash Reddy, J
This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 15.11.2005 passed by the learnedSingle Judge in Writ Petition No.17050 of 2005 whereby he rejected the appellant’schallenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 as implementing agency of Mid-Day Meal Programme (for short ‘MDMP’) in Mandal Parishad Primary School, PathaUpplapadu village, Nuzendla Mandal, Prakasam District.
The State of Andhra Pradesh introduced a scheme to serve mid-day meal in MandalParishad Primary Schools. For implementing that scheme, the Government issuedguidelines, vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2002 and fixed the following priorities inthe matter of appointment of implementing agencies:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. DWCRA Group
2. Self-Help groups
3. School Education Committee
4. other agencies like Temple
5. NGOs of proven track record
6. Charitable Trusts
7. Group of Parents.
Since no DWCRA group was operating in village Patha Uppalapadu at therelevant time, the appellant was appointed as implementing agency being Chairmanof the Education Committee in Patha Uppalapadu Primary School. Subsequently,when a DWCRA group started functioning in the village, Respondent No.3, who is amember of the DWCRA group, was appointed as implementing agency, vide orderdated 20.6.2005 issued by respondent No.2. This resulted in displacement of theappellant. He filed Writ Petition No.17050 of 2005 for quashing order dated 20.6.2005 by contending that the decision to appoint respondent No.3 as theimplementing agency is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice andmala fides.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it was averredthat as per the guidelines issued by the Government, DWCRA group was to begiven preference. However, due to non-availability of DWCRA group in PathaUppalapadu village, the appellant was appointed as an implementing agency, as hewas heading the School Education Committee. It was further stated thatsubsequently, a DWCRA group started functioning at Patha Uppalapadu village andas respondent No.3 happened to be its member, he was appointed as implementingagency. Respondents 1 and 2 denied the allegations made by the appellant thatappointment of Respondent No.3 was actuated by mala fides.
The learned Single Judged dismissed the writ petition by observing thatappointment of respondent No.3 as implementing agency does not suffer from anylegal infirmity, because she was member of DWCRA group of Patha Uppalapaduvillage.
Shri Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appointmentof respondent No.3 and consequential removal of his client from the position ofimplementing agency is liable to be declared as nullity because the action ofrespondent No.2 was not preceded by any enquiry. He further submitted that thelearned Single Judge committed an error by rejecting the appellant’s plea that theappointment of respondent No.3 as implementing agency was vitiated due to malafides.
Learned Government Pleader supported the order under challenge and submittedthat appointment of the appellant as implementing agency did not create any legal orconstitutional right in his favour and he cannot seek its enforcement. He furthersubmitted that the appointment of implementing agency does not confer anyfinancial or other benefit and, therefore, the appellant cannot complain against theaction taken by respondent No.2 to appoint respondent No.3.
We have thoughtfully considered the respective arguments.
It is not in dispute that as per the guidelines issued by the Government, videG.O.Ms.No.94, DWCRA group had to be given preference. The appellant was appointed as implementing agency because there was no DWCRA group availablein Patha Uppalapadu village at the relevant time. However, that did not create anyenforceable or vested right in his favour and his replacement by respondent No.3cannot be castigated on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice.
We are further of the view that the reasons assigned by respondents 1 and 2for appointing respondent No.3 as implementing agency is germane to theguidelines issued by the State Government, which postulates giving of preference toDWCRA group. It has not been controverted by the appellant that Respondent No.3is a member of DWCRA group in the village, which was formed subsequent to hisappointment as implementing agency. Once the DWCRA Group became available,respondent No.2 could legitimately appoint one of its members as the implementingagency. Thus, the appointment of respondent No.3 cannot be termed as illegal orvitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed.
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
23[rd] December, 2005
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
Ajr/vtv