I % % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 4188 OF 2020 Between: O Chandra Kalavathi, W/o. O. Rangaiah, Age 50 years, SMC Chairman Cherlopalli, Anumpalli, Chitvel Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3. The District Educational Officer, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 4. The Deputy Educational Officer, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District. 6. The Mandal Educational Officer, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in issuing proceedings vide Ref.Rence.A/507/2018 dated 06.01.2010 terminating the petitioner as Mid Day Meal Agency in Zilla Parishad High School, Chitvel Village and Mandal, Kadapa District and without conducting enquiry is illegal. % arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings vide Ref.Rence.A/507/ 2018 dated 06.01.2020 issued by Respondent No.5 by directing the respondents to continue the Petitioner as agency for Mid Day Meals Programme forthwith. Counsel for the PetitionerSRI P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondents No.1,3,4,6: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents No.2,5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010071542020 [3505] TUESDAY .THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 4188/2020 Between; O Chandra Kalavathi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings in whereby and where under the petitioner’s agency was terminated by the 5^'^ respondent, without conducting enquiry. Ref.Rence.A/507/2018, dated 06.01.2020, Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for 2. respondent Nos.2 and 5. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the Chairman of the School Managing Committee, ZP High School, Chitvel, Chitvel Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, since 08.08.2016, and she is implementing the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in the said school after following the requisite formalities under G.O.Ms.No.94 (SE- PROG-1), School Education Department, dated 25.11.2002. The term of the petitioner’s agency was for a period of two (2) years, which was expired in the year 2018, and thereafter, it was extended by another two (2) years. 3. th It is further case of the petitioner that , while so, the 5 respondent terminated the petitioner’s agency vide notice dated 02.10.2018, and directed the Head Master of ZP High School, Chitvel, to take charge until a new agency is appointed. 4. rj 3F \/ Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.37535 of 2018. This Court, after hearing both parties, set aside the impugned notice dated 02.10.2018, directing the competent authority to take appropriate action after conducting an enquiry by affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and to communicate the order passed thereon. In pursuance of the said order, the 5*'^ respondent issued a notice dated 28.12.2019, to the petitioner, calling for objections. 5. The petitioner replied to the same by submitting explanation dated 30.12.2019. Thereafter, the 5‘^ respondent passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2020, terminating the petitioner’s agency from serving mid-day meals in the said school. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The 5**^ respondent filed a counter affidavit. Upon perusal of 6. the same, it is clear that after receiving a complaint against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, and a review committee meeting was held on 23.12.2019, regarding the petitioner’s agency. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued, and after considering the objections, the impugned order was passed. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 5 strenuously contends that th there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the 5 respondent and prays to dismiss the writ petition, as the petitioner committed serious irregularities. It is an admitted fact that the tenure of the petitioner is for a 8. period of two (2) years and she was initially appointed in 2016, and her term was expired in the year 2018, and thereafter, the same was extended by another two (2) years. Subsequently, during the extended period, irregularities were found against the petitioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 28.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner asking for explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 30.12.2019, upon considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 2020, the order under challenge was not suspended. In that view of the 9. matter, the respondents have appointed a new agency, and the said agency has been serving mid-day meals since 2020. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, the explanation offered to the show cause notice was not considered in its proper perspective, and therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside. As already noted supra, the term of the petitioner was for a period of two (2) years and the same was expired long ago by 10. \ efflux of time. Further, the petitioner at this distance of time petitioner did not take steps question of considering the does not arise in as much as the to implead the subsequently appointed in her place, and if case of the person who was any order is passed, it writ petition purpose would be served expired long ago and not suspend the impugned order at the will effect the interest of the said person. Further, the cannot be decided the tenure of the particularly, this Court did time of admission. on merits as no as petitioner was more 11 In view of the above, there are no merits in the present writ petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications . it any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// ir SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI. P NARAHARI BABU Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCsto GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three C.D.Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. ss-'^ HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.4188 of 2020 DISMISING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS