APHC010150832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. CHEDALAVADA MUTYALA RAO, S/O.SANKARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42, YEARS, OCC. UN ACHANTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (SCHOOL.ED.DEPT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHIMAVARM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, , BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE HEAD MASTERCUMMEO, ACHANTA, WEST DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANDA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8074/2025 CHEDALAVADA MUTYALA RAO, S/O.SANKARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42, YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.20-74, PEDAPETA, ACHANTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (SCHOOL.ED.DEPT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHIMAVARM, WEST GODAVARI THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, , BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE HEAD MASTERCUMMEO, ACHANTA, WEST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: MANDA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA CHEDALAVADA MUTYALA RAO, S/O.SANKARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74, PEDAPETA, ACHANTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (SCHOOL.ED.DEPT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHIMAVARM, WEST GODAVARI THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, , BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Manda Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned Government Pleader for Education. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Impugned Notice dated 28.02.2025 (Ex.P.1). He would submit that, though the Impugned Proceedings are couched in the nomenclature of Notice, the same is, in effect, an order of termination. The said Notice would indicate that the School Management Committee (SMC) has considered the complaint made against the Writ Petitioner and has passed a resolution terminating the services of the Writ Petitioner as null and void. 3. Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader, has submitted that the said watchman was appointed on a temporary basis to perform duties during nighttime in order to safeguard the material procured in the school premises, as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 19.03.2023. 4. This Court has examined the said G.O. The said G.O. contemplates the upgrading of the existing schools as a mission in a phased manner for providing various amenities contemplated in the said G.O. in all the schools. The said G.O. would indicate that, since the material would have to be procured, there is a requirement for a night watchman to stand guard to secure the safety of such material. 5. He would submit that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 19.03.2023, the Writ Petitioner was appointed. He has also produced the Minutes of the Resolution of the School Management Committee dated 12.02.2025, which indicate that the Writ Petitioner has been performing his duties as night watchman in an intoxicated condition, apart from other allegations. 3 6. In pursuance of the said Resolution dated 12.02.2025, the Writ Petitioner was removed by the Head Master vide Impugned Notice dated 28.02.2025 (Ex.P1). Admittedly, no show-cause notice was ever served on the Writ Petitioner before his removal from service. 7. Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader would submit that after terminating the writ Petitioner from the service of night watchman, another person has already been appointed in his place and there is no vacancy as such. He has also placed on record a Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1079 of 2024 under similar circumstances, where the Division Bench had directed the Respondents to issue fresh Show-cause Notice and pass fresh orders after considering the Explanation submitted by the terminated employee. He would submit that the Writ Petitioner/Appellant in W.A.No.1079 of 2024 is also similarly situated in as much as the said person was also appointed under the Mid-day meals Scheme which is governed by G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 19.03.02023. 8. Accordingly, the Impugned Notice dated 28.02.2025 (Ex.P1) is set aside. 9. Having regard to these above facts, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition with the following directions: a. The Respondents are permitted to serve a fresh Show-cause Notice on the Writ Petitioner within one week from today. b. The arrangement made by the Respondents by appointing i.e., Sri M. Rama Krishna shall be continued till such time, as the Show-cause Notice is issued and reply is considered and appropriate orders are passed thereupon. c. There shall be a direction to complete the entire procedure within one month from today and convey the final proceedings to the Writ Petitioner forthwith. 4 10. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 01.04.2025 TJN