Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
V Subhan Bi vs Ananthapur on 20 February, 2026
APHC010130022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 6854/2025
Between:
1. V SUBHAN BI, W/O MASTHANVALI, EX. COOKING AGENT,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S.P. GOVT. GIRLS HIGH
SCHOOL, ADDANKI-523 201, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA
DISTRICT, R/O DOOR NO. 16-60-1, DAMAVARIPALEM,
ADDANKI, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT,
BAPATLA.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAPATLA,
BAPATLA DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BAPATLA
DISTRICT, BAPATLA.
5. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, ADDANKI
MUNICIPALITY, ADDANKI, BAPATLA DISTRICT.
2
6. THE CONVENER AND MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ADDANKI MANDAL, ADDANKI, BAPATLA DISTRICT.
7. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
ADDANKI MANDAL, ADDANKI, BAPATLA DISTRICT.
8. THE CHAIRMAN AND TAHSILDAR, ADDANKI MANDAL,
ADDANKI, BAPATLA DISTRICT.
9. THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE SMC, REP.BY
ITS CHAIRMAN TALLURI PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.P. GOVT.
GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, ADDANKI, BAPATIA DISTRICT.
10. THE HEAD MASTER, S.P. GOVT. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
ADDANKI ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT.
11. SRI K SRINIVASA RAO, HEAD MASTER, S.P. GOVT.
GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL ADDANKI,ADDANKI MANDAL,
BAPATLA DISTRICT.
12. SMT SHAIK MASTHAN BI, W/O SHAIK KASIM SAHEB
PRESENTLY COOKING AGENT, S.P. GOVT. GIRLS HIGH
SCHOOL, ADDANKI, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the
action of the respondents No.6 to 10 (Mandal Level Mid-Day Meal
Scheme Committee) issued Proceedings in Rc.No.SPL/MDM/2019,
Dated 22-10-2024 removed the petitioner from duties as Cooking
agent in implementing the Mid- Day-Meal agency in S.P. Govt. Girls
High School, Addanki, Addanki Mandal, Bapatia District and
subsequent Proceedings Dated 23-10-2024 issued by the 10th
respondent are illegal, arbitrary, violation of rules in G.O.Ms.No.94
Education(SE-PROG-l) Department dated 25-11-2002, also violation
of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, set-aside the same
3
and consequently direct the respondents No. 6 to 10 to reinstate the
petitioner in service as Cooking agent in S.P. Govt. Girls High
School, Addanki, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District and to pass such
other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 6 to 10
to continue the petitioner in service as Cooking agent in S.P. Govt.
Girls High School, Addanki, Addanki Mandal, Bapatia District by
suspending the Proceedings in Rc.No.SPL/MDM/2019, Dated 22-
10-2024 of the respondents No.6 to 10 (Mandal Level Mid-Day Meal
Scheme Committee) and subsequent Proceedings Dated 23-10-
2024 issued by the 10th respondent pending disposal of the above
writ petition and pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D KASIM SAHEB
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
3. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI
4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram
Panchayats
WRIT PETITION NO: 6264/2025
Between:
1. ALLU JAYAMMA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS MDM-HEAD WOMEN-COOK-CUM-HELPER IN
ZALLA PARISHAD SCHOOL, M.S.R.PURAM, VANGARA
MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, R/O PEDDA VEEDHI,
M.S.R.PURAM, VANGARA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
4
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR
MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERSTWHILE SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT, PRESENTLY VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICERCUMMEMBER OF
MIDDAY MEALS, ERSTWHILE SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
4. THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICERCUMMEMBER OF
MIDDAY MEALS, VANGARA MANDAL, ERSTWHILE
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT.
5. THE TAHSILADARCUMMEMBER OF MIDDAY MEALS,
VANGARA MANDAL, ERSTWHILE SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
6. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CUMMEMBER OF
MIDDAY MEALS, VANGARA MANDAL, ERSTWHILE
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT.
7. THE HEAD MASTERCUMMEMBER OF MIDDAY MEALS, ZILLA
PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL, M.S.R.PURAM, VANGARA MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
8. THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, ZILLA PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL, M.S.R.PURAM,
VANGARA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
9. SMT DUPPDA JANIKI, W/O JANARADHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, MDM-HEAD WOMEN-COOK-CUM-HELPER IN ZALLA
PARISHAD SCHOOL, M.S.R.PURAM, VANGARA MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
5
10. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CORPORATION FOR OUTSOURCED
SERVICEAPCOS, REP BY ITS CHIRPERSON, 2ND FLOOR,
NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, PANDIT NEHRU BUS
STATION, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 520002.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a writ, order or direction more in
the nature of Mandamus declaring the action respondents
particularly the 2nd to 8th respondents in removing the Petitioner
from MDM-Head Women-Cook-cum- Helper from the 7th respondent
School in Zalla Parishad School, M.S.R.Puram, Vangara Mandal,
Vizianagaram District in pursuance of the 8th respondent in SMC
Resolution dated 17-02-2025, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of
Principal of Fundamental Rights under Articles 311(2), 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India and violation of the vide G.O. Ms. No. 126,
dated 18-10-2019 and G.O.Ms.No.l36,04-11-2019 and guidelines
for engaging Out-Soured Manpower under Guidelines vide Circular
Memo No.GADOl-SUOMIC/31/2019-SU-I, dated 20-11-2029 and
also contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 19-06-2013 and
consequently to set-aside the Resolution dated 17-02-2025 of the
8th respondent and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to Stay the Resolution dated
17-02-2025 of the 8th respondent by directing the respondents
Continue the Petitioner as MDM-Head Women-Cook-cum-Helper in
Zilla Parishad High School, M.S.R.Puram, Vangara Mandal,
Vizianagaram District in the 7th respondent School pending disposal
of the above writ petition and pass such other order.
6
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on
record by allowing the leave petition Writ Petition
No.6264 of 2025 in the above writ petition and pass such other
order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G SIMHADRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
3. K BHEEMA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2914/2025
Between:
1. PALLA CHINNA NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O PULLAREDDY
AGED 59 YEARS OCC. COOK (MDM) O/O ZPHS
NARAHARIPURAM CHAPADU (M) KADAPA R/O
NARAHARIPURAM (V) CHAPADU (M) KADAPA
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI
GUNTUR DISTRICT PETITIONER
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT
7
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA REVENUE
DIVISION KADAPA YSR DISTRICT
4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAPADU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT
5. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAPADU
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT
6. THE HEAD MASTER, ZPHS NARAHARIPURAM CHAPADU
(M) KADAPA
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 an order, writ or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring
the action of respondents not consider petitioner candidature for
continuing his service as Cook for Mid-day meal agent at ZPHS
Naraharipuram Chapadu (M) Kadapa and forcing the petitioner to
drop out from Cooking duties for Mid-day meal programme without
any show cause notice or proceeding is illegal arbitrary unjust and
violative of Art 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner
service as Cook for Mid-day meal agency at ZPHS Naraharipuram
Chapadu (M) Kadapa and direct the 5TH and 6TH respondent to
follow due procedure of law before removing the petitioner from
duties and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue
the petitioner service as Cook for Mid-day meal agency at ZPHS
Naraharipuram Chapadu (M) Kadapa pending disposal of the above
writ petition in the interest of justice and pass such other order.
8
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. GP FOR REVENUE
WRIT PETITION NO: 6477/2025
Between:
1. A. CHITTAMMA, W/O. A. GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, OCC. SCHOOL AYAH, R/O. 2-32, SC COLONY,
BRAHMANAPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI
SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SRI SATHYA SAI
DISTRICT.
4. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUTTAPRTHI
MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DIST.,
5. THE MANDAL PRAJA PARISHADS SCHOOL,
BRAHMANAPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, REP.
BY ITS HEAD MASTER
...RESPONDENT(S):
9
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 a writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the
action of the Respondent NO. 5 in removing the petitioner from the
post of Ayah without giving notice to the petitioner and not
considering the representation dated 04.01.2025 and 17.01.2025 by
the respondent No. 2 to 4 is arbitrary unjust and violative of Articles
14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India unconstitutional and
consequently to direct the respondent authorities to consider the
case of the petitioner for reinstate for the post of Ayah.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to
consider the representation dated 04.01.2025 made by the Petitioner
pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 21842/2024
Between:
1. KADIVETI VAJRAMMA, W/O DASARADHA RAMI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC- HELPER, MID DAY MEAL
SCHEME, R/O. BETHULAPALLI VILLAGE, PODALAKURU
MANDAL S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
10
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT, (DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY), REP BY ITS DIRECTOR (MID DAY
MEALS), SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD
ROAD, NEW DELHI.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT,
NELLORE.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. THE TAHSILDAR, PODHALAKUR MANDAL, PODHALAKUR,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
7. THE MANDAL EDUCATION OFFICER, PODHALAKUR
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
8. THE HEAD MASTER, M.P.P SCHOOL, BATHULAPALLI
VILLAGE PODHALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT.
9. PONGULRU RAMADEVI, W/O. LT MOHAN, AGED MAJOR.
R/O. BATHULLAPALLI VILLAGE, PODALAKURU MANDAL,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 Writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the
action of Respondent No.7 and 8 in removing the petitioner from the
11
service without notice and order is illegal, arbitrary and violation of
principles of natural justice and Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution
of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the
petitioner as cook helper at Respondent No.8 school and pass such
other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner as cook helper in Respondent
No.8 school, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass
such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
2. B APPA RAO
3.
WRIT PETITION NO: 28035/2024
Between:
1. BYRI LAKSHMI, W/O B.SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS A MID-DAY MEAL
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY, R/O.1-11 COLONY, DANTHA
VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. LAVETI VASANTHI,, W/O LAVETI SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS HELPER IN MID-DAY MEAL,
R/O. D.NO. 1-335, KONDA VEEDHI, DANTHA VILLAGE,
KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
12
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT, A.P
5. THE MANDAL EDUCATION OFFICER, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P.
6. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P.
7. THE HEAD MASTER, MANDAL PARISHAD UPPER PRIMARY
(MPUP) SCHOOL, DANTHA VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
8. THE SCHOOL EDUCATION COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, MANDAL PARISHAD UPPER PRIMARY (MPUP)
SCHOOL, DANTHA VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
9. DUNGA CHINNAMMI, W/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 47
YEARS, R/O DANTHA VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
10. NAKKA NARASAMMA, W/O JAGGARAO, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, R/O DANTHA VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 pass an order or orders or direction
more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS
declaring the action of the Three Members Committee (Trisabhya
Committee) comprising Respondents 4 to 6 for terminating the
13
petitioners from the services vide proceedings dated 27.09.2024 in
terminating the petitioners Mid-Day-Meal implementing agency and
helper of the mid-day meals program at Mandal Parishad Upper
Primary (MPUP) School, Dantha Village,Kotabommali Mandal,
Srikakulam District, is violation of principles of natural justice
contrary to Proc.Rc.No.27021/MDM-ll/2020 dated 29.01.2020 issued
by the Commissioner of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, as
illegal, arbitrary and also violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents to
continue the petitioner's Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency of
Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School (MPUP School), by setting
aside the proceedings dated 27.09.2024 issued by the Respondent
No.4 to 6 and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct Respondent No.4 to 6 to allow the Petitioners to
discharge their duties as implementing authority of Mid Day Meal
Programme in MPUP School, Dantha Village, Kotabommali Mandal,
Srikakulam District, A.P, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass
such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition
in the above writ petition and pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CKR ASSOCIATES
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. GP FOR REVENUE
14
WRIT PETITION NO: 28697/2024
Between:
1. T NAGAMANI, W/O. T.MADHUSUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, R/O H.NO.6-105, B.C. COLONY, GADIVEMULA VILLAGE
AND MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT - 518 508.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
3. MID DAY MEALS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, GADIVEMULA
MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND TAHSILDAR, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
4. MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND MEMBER, MID DAY
MEALS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE GADIVEMULA
MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
5. MANDAL PRAJA PARISBAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
6. TAHSILDAR, GADIVEMULA MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT.
7. PRINCIPAL, A.P. MODEL SCHOOL, GADIVEMULA MANDAL,
NANDYAL DISTRICT.
8. T JAYAMMA, W/O. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN IO
THE PETITIONER R/O. NEAR RAJARAJESWARI SCHOOL, BC
COLONY, GADIVEMULA (V AND M) NANDYAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
Proceedings in Rc.No. Spl.1/MDM/2024, dated 31-07-2024 issued
15
by the 3rd Respondents wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative
of principles of natural Justice and consequently declare that the
Petitioner is entitled to be continued in A.R Model School,
Gadivemula, Nandyat District for implementation of Mid Day Meals
Scheme and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in
Rc.No.Spl 1/MDM/2024, dated 31-07-2024 issued by the
Respondent with a direction to the Respondents to continue the
petitioner in A.P. Model School, Gadivemula, Nandyal District for
implementation of Mid Day Meals Scheme and pass such other
order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file
additional documents i.e., termination notices dated 06-07- 2024, 20-
07-2024 and 27-07-2024 along with postal acknowledgments and
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MADHAVI LATHA KATASANI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. KHAJA KHUTUBUDDIN SHAIK
16
WRIT PETITION NO: 30422/2024
Between:
1. ORSU JYOTHI, W/O YESURATNAM , EX.COOKING AGENT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Z.P.H SCHOOL,PEDANAGULAVARAM
VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, R/O
PEDANAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
PRAKASAM, DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.
3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, MARKAPURDIVISION, MARKAPUR,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT AT ONGOLE.
5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MARKAPUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
6. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDARAND CHAIRMAN MANDAL LEVEL
MIDDAYMEAL PROGRAMME, MARKAPUR
MANDAL,MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
8. THE HEAD MASTER, Z.P.H. SCHOOL, PEDDANAGULAVARAM
VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
9. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEESMC, REP.BY.ITS
CHAIRMAN REPANIYEDUKONDALU, S/O CHINA
VENKATESWARLU, AGE 40 YEARS, Z.P.H SCHOOL,
17
PEDANAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
10. SMT VALLEPUUMADEVI, W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Z.P.H SCHOOL,PEDANAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR
MANDAL, PRAKASAMDISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of the 7th respondent removing the petitioner in Proceedings
vide R.C.A/199/2024 dated. 14-10-2024 from duties by passing the
resolution in implementing the Mid Day Meal Programme in Z.P.H
School, PedaNagulavaram Village,Markapur Mandal, Prakasam
District without following the prescribed procedure is illegal, arbitrary,
violation of rules in G.O.Ms.No.94 Education(SE-PROG-I)
Department dated 25-11-2002, also violation of Art.16 AND 21 of the
constitution of the India, set aside the same and consequently direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Cooking
agent in Z.P.H School, PedaNagulavaram Village,Markapur Mandal,
Prakasam District and to pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue
the petitioner in service as Cooking agent in Z.P.H School,
PedaNagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District by
suspending the Proceedings vide R.C.A/199/2024 dated
14-10-2024pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such
other order.
18
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on
record by allowing the leave petition in Writ Petition No. 30422 of
2024 in the above writ petition and pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D KASIM SAHEB
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 30423/2024
Between:
1. ORSU VENKATAMMA, W/O VENKATESWARLU, EX.COOKING
AGENT, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MANDALA PARISHAD
PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEDA NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE,DISE
CODE. 28180900302 MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT, R/O PEDA NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR
MANDAL, PRAKASAM, DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.
3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT AT ONGOLE.
19
5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MARKAPUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
6. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR AND CHAIRMAN MANDAL LEVEL
MIDDAYMEAL PROGRAMME, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
8. THE HEAD MASTER, MANDALA PARISHAD PRIMARY SCHOOL,
PEDA NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, DISE CODE. 28180900302,
MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT
9. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEESMC, REP.BY.ITS
CHAIRMAN PYDI BALAIAH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, AGE 48 YEARS, MANDALA PARISHAD PRIMARY
SCHOOL, PEDA NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, DISE CODE.
28180900302, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
10. CHALLA VANAMMA, W/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, MANDALA PARISHAD PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEDA
NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 7th respondent
removing the petitioner in Proceedings vide R.C.A/199/2024 dated. 14-
10-2024 from duties by passing the resolution in implementing the Mid
Day Meal Programme in Mandala Parishad Primary School, Peda
Nagulavaram Village, DISE CODE. 28180900302, Markapur Mandal,
Prakasam District without following the prescribed procedure is illegal,
arbitrary, violation of rules in G.O.Ms.No.94 Education(SE-PROG-l)
Department dated 25-11-2002, also violation of Art. 16 and 21 of the
constitution of the India, set aside the same and consequently direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Cooking agent in
Mandala Parishad Primary School, Peda Nagulavaram Village, DISE
CODE.28180900302, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, and to pass
such other order.
20
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as
Cooking agent in Mandala Parishad Primary School, Peda Nagulavaram
Village, DISE CODE: 28180900302, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District
by suspending the Proceedings vide R.C.A/199/2024 dated: 14-10-2024
pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave
petition Writ Petition No. 30423 of 2024 in the above writ petition and pass
such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D KASIM SAHEB
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 30426/2024
Between:
1. TURAKA LAKSHMI TIRUPATAMMA, W/O ADINARAYANA
EX.COOK-CUM HELPER, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, Z.P.H
SCHOOL,PEDA NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR
MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, R/O B.C COLONY, PEDA
NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM,
DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
21
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.
3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, MARKAPUR DIVISION, MARKAPUR,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT AT ONGOLE.
5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MARKAPUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
6. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR AND CHAIRMAN MANDAL LEVEL
MIDDAYMEAL PROGRAMME, MARKAPUR MANDAL,
MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
8. THE HEAD MASTER, Z.P.H. SCHOOL, PEDDA NAGULAVARAM
VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
9. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE SMC, REP.BY.ITS
CHAIRMAN REPANI YEDUKONDALU, S/O CHINA
VENKATESWARLU, AGE 40 YEARS, Z.P.H SCHOOL, PEDA
NAGULAVARAM VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
10. ORSU VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O CHINA RAJAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, Z.P.H SCHOOL,PEDA NAGULAVARAM
VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of the 7th respondent removing the petitioner in Proceedings
vide R.C.A/199/2024 dated. 14-10-2024 from duties by passing the
resolution in implementing the Mid Day Meal Programme in Z.P.H
22
School, Peda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam
District without following the prescribed procedure is illegal,
arbitrary, violation of rules in G.O.Ms.No.94 Education(SE-PROG- l)
Department dated 25-11-2002, also violation of Art.16 and 21 of the
constitution of the India, set aside the same and consequently direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Cooking
agent in Z.P.H School, Peda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur
Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Cooking agent in
Z.P.H School, Peda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal,
Prakasam District by suspending the Proceedings vide
R.C.A/199/2024 dated: 14-10-2024 pending disposal of the above
writ petition and pass such other order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on
record by allowing the leave petition Writ Petition No. 30426 of 2024
in the above writ petition and pass such other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D KASIM SAHEB
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
23
WRIT PETITION NO: 31329/2024
Between:
1. GUDDETI YESAMMA, W/O RAMAKOTI AGE. ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC
AAYA AND SWEEPER, RESIDENT OF GUMMANAMPADU VILLAGE,
BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT EARSWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. VEERADASU ADILAXMI, W/O. KOTESWARA RAO AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCC. AAYA AND SWEEPER NOTE. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
GUMMANAMPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT EARSWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI.
2. THE COMMISSIONER SCHOOL EDUCATION, VTPS ROAD,
BHIMARAJU GUTTA, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, EARSTWHILE
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALNADU DISTRICT,
NARASARAOPET, EARSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL,
BOLLAPALLI PALNADU DISTRICT, EARSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE HEAD MASTER/ HEAD MISS, ZILLA PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL
GUMMANPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, EARSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. THE VIDYA COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, ZILLA PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL
GUMMANPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, EARSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 an appropriate Writ, order or
direction more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF
24
MANDAMUS to declare the action of the 4th, 5th and 6th
Respondents for not responding / considering on the Petitioners
representation dated 26-02-2022, and Legal Notice dated
09-01-2023 and also oral requests and not paying their due salaries
and the amounts incurred for the cleaning work, and also
highhandedly removed from the post of Aaya in the 5th Respondent
School, without any prior notice, information and without following
the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and un constitutional and
consequently direct the 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents to pay the
Petitioners entire dues of salary and the amount incurred to
purchase the Phenyl bottles. Acid Bottels, Brooms (Cheepuru),
Brushes etc to do cleaning work, forthwith and pass such other
order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 4th,
5th & 6th Respondents to pay the entire dues of salary and the
amounts incurred for the cleaning work forthwith and pass such
other order.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CH VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
The Court made the following:
25
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.Nos.6854, 6264, 2914, 6477 of 2025, W.P.Nos.21842, 28035,
28697, 30422, 30423, 30426 and 31329 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
1. These Writ Petitions were filed questioning the removal of
respective Petitioners as Cook-cum-Helpers and the posts associated
thereto from the Respondent-Schools pursuant to the School
Management Committee (SMC) resolution, as illegal and violative of
principles of natural justice. As the issues involved in all these Writ
Petitions are same, all the Writ Petitions have been heard together and
are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. In W.P.No.6854 of 2025 the Petitioner was removed as Cook-cum-
Helper, Addanki, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District after being
dissatisfied with the explanation to the show-cause notice. The show-
cause notice was with regard to unsatisfactory work of Petitioner on
various counts.
3. In W.P.No.6264 of 2025 the Petitioner was removed as Cook-cum-
Helper on 10.09.2024 from Zilla Parishad School, MSR Puram,
Vangara Mandal, Vizianagaram District after being dissatisfied with the
explanation to the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was with
regard to unsatisfactory work of Petitioner on various counts.
26
4. In W.P.No.2914 of 2025 the Petitioner was removed as Cook on
05.11.2012 from Z.P.H.S. Naraharipuram, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa
District after being dissatisfied with the Petitioner’s work. Respondent
Nos.5 and 6 forced the Petitioner to drop out from the duties without
any notice.
5. In W.P.No.6477 of 2025 the Petitioner was removed as Ayah on
01.01.2025 from Bhramanapalli Primary School, Brahmanapalli Village,
Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District after being dissatisfied with
the Petitioner’s work, without issuing any notice on various counts.
6. In W.P.No.21842 of 2024 the Petitioner was removed as Helper
on 05.09.2024 from Mandal Praja Parishad School, Bathullapalli
Village, Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District after being
dissatisfied with Petitioner’s work and without issuing any notice the
Petitioner was removed from service.
7. In W.P.No.30426 of 2024 the Petitioner was removed as
Cook-cum-Helper on 14.10.2024 from Z.P.H. School, Peda
Nagulavaram Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District after
being dissatisfied with the explanation to the show-cause notice. The
show-cause notice was with regard to unsatisfactory work of Petitioner
on various counts.
27
8. In W.P.No.30423 of 2024 the Petitioner was removed as Cook
on 14.10.2024 from Mandala Parishad Primary School, Peda
Nagulavaram Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District after
being dissatisfied with the explanation to the show-cause notice.
The show-cause notice was with regard to unsatisfactory work of
Petitioner on various counts.
9. In W.P.No.30422 of 2024 the Petitioner was removed as Cook
on 14.10.2024 from Z.P.H. School, Peda Nagulavaram Village,
Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District after being dissatisfied with the
explanation to the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was with
regard to unsatisfactory work of Petitioner on various counts.
10. In W.P.No.28697 of 2024 the Petitioner was removed as Head
Cook on 31.07.2024 from A.P. Model School, Gadivemula Mandal,
Nandyal District after being dissatisfied with the explanation to the
show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was with regard to
unsatisfactory work of Petitioner on various counts.
11. In W.P.No.31329 of 2024 the Petitioner was removed as Ayah-
cum-Sweeper on 06.12.2021 from Zilla Parishad High School,
Gummanpadu Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District after being
dissatisfied with the explanation to the show-cause notice. The show-
28
cause notice was with regard to unsatisfactory work of Petitioner on
various counts.
12. W.P.No.6854 of 2025 is taken as the lead case for narration
of facts.
13. In the year 2002, the State Government had taken a policy
decision to introduce Mid Day Meals in Schools and G.O.Ms.No.94,
Education (SE-PROG-I) Department, dated 25.11.2002, was issued
specifying the mechanism for implementation. As per the said G.O., an
Implementing Agency was entrusted with the job of providing Mid Day
Meals in rural areas i.e. DWCRA/Self-help Groups/SEC/Other
Agencies like Temple, NGOs of Proven Track Record and Charitable
Trusts/Group of parents as identified by the Mandal Revenue
Officer/Tahsildar. As regards Urban Areas Community Development
Societies/NGO/Urban SHGS etc., headed by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, would be the Implementing Agencies.
14. A Monitoring Committee was constituted at the State Level,
District Level, Municipal and Municipal Corporation Level etc., to
oversee the implementation of the Mid Day Meals Scheme of the State
Government. The Petitioner was said to be appointed as Cook-cum-
Helper in S.P. Girls High School, Addanki as per the procedure
prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25.11.2002. While so, after long
29
years of service, the Petitioner was sought to be terminated from
service without issuing any prior notice. Hence, the Petitioner filed
W.P.No.13851 of 2024 before this Court challenging the action of the
Respondents therein.
15. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide Order dated
15.11.2024 directing the Respondents therein to follow the procedure
as per law by issuing a show-cause notice and pass appropriate
orders, if they do not intend to continue the Petitioner.
16. Pursuant thereto, a show-cause notice was issued against the
Petitioner on 05.09.2024 by Respondent No.10, stating that
Sambarbath was not cooked properly and that the plates of the
students were not cleaned with hot water. It is also stated that the
students suffered from stomach pain after consuming the same.
Thereupon, the Petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the
allegations and stating that he has been on the job since 2007 and that
no allegations have been made during all these years. It is also stated
that the food that was supplied to the children on that day was checked
by Respondent No.10 before serving to the children and therefore the
said show-cause notice cannot be sustained. Another show-cause
notice was issued by the Respondent-authorities against the Petitioner
on 25.09.2024 stating that the food supplied by the Petitioner on
30
11.09.2024, 19.09.2024, 20.09.2024, 23.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 was
not properly cooked, which was checked by the Members of the School
Management Committee and also by the Municipal Commissioner,
Addanki. Thereupon, without reference to the explanation offered by
the Petitioner, the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 was passed,
removing the Petitioner from the post of
Cook-cum-Helper and appointing Respondent No.12 in his place.
Questioning the same, W.P.No.6854 of 2025 is filed.
17. Respondent No.6/Mandal Education Officer filed a Counter-
Affidavit on behalf of himself, the State and the Headmaster of the
Respondent-School i.e., Respondent Nos.1 and 11. In the Counter-
Affidavit, reliance was placed on the Judgments of this Court stating
that the Petitioner do not have any vested right enforceable under
Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further stated that the Petitioner did
not dispute the allegations in the reply to the show-cause notice with
reference to food not being tasty and as the Petitioner failed to perform
her duty, the impugned orders need not be interfered with.
18. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the
allegations are simple in nature and the imposition of a major penalty
would affect the livelihood of the Petitioners. It is also stated that the
Petitioners have been continuing as Cook-cum-Helper from 2007
31
onwards without any complaint. Apart from that, it is stated that as per
G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25.11.2002, the SMC or the Head Master have
no power to remove the Petitioners and that the Mandal Revenue
Officer alone is entitled to do so as per the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated
25.11.2002. A reference was also made to the Andhra Pradesh Mid
Day Meals Scheme, the 2015 Rules, contending that the concerned
authority is mandated to refer samples to a laboratory to test the quality
of the food without adhering to the procedure prescribed removing the
Petitioners based on unreasoned SMC resolution is unsustainable.
19. The learned counsel for the Respondents while relying on the
Judgments in Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy Oriental Educational
Committee v. The District Level Committee for Mid Day Meals
Scheme, Cuddapah1, Rudramamba Mahila DWCRA Group, Shiva
Nagar, Warangal v. Principal Secretary, Education Department 2,
Rachakonda Nagaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , rep. by
the District Collector, Nalgonda3, D. Ameena Bee Vs Ananthapur
Municipality4 and W.P.No.8037 and Batch 31.10.2019 rendered by a
Coordinate Bench after referring to the above mentioned case law,
to the effect that the Petitioners, who were appointed under the Mid
Day Meals Scheme do not have vested enforceable right for
1
2003(2) APLJ 323
2
2004(6) ALD 157
3
2013(3) ALT 377
4
2005(2)ALT 576(DB)
32
continuation as Cook-cum-Helper. It is also contended that the removal
of the Petitioners was after the issuance of a show-cause notice and a
decision taken by the School Management Committee, who were not
satisfied with the quality of food that was cooked by the Petitioners and
therefore the impugned order can be sustained.
20. Reasoning: Initially, the State Government has taken a policy
decision to implement the Mid Day Meals Programme as directed by
the Supreme Court in W.P.No.196 of 2001 dated 17.09.2001 by giving
hot cooked food for the children of Classes I to VII in Government
Schools and Government Aided Primary and Upper Primary Schools in
the State with a minimum 300 calories and 8-12 gms. of protein content
for every child. In the Annexure thereto, guidelines for the
implementation of the Mid Day Meals Programme were specified.
The Implementing Agency was to be engaged for lifting rice from the
fair price shops as per allotment issued by Mandal Revenue Officer,
purchase the other required ingredients, procure cooking vessels and
arrange for cooking of food by its members and supply cooked meal to
children. The Implementing Agency was also supposed to maintain
Cash Book, Stock Register and Issue Register.
33
21. A Monitoring Committee was constituted to supervise the
implementation of Mid Day Meals Programme at State Level, District
Level, Municipal and Municipal Corporation Level. The Petitioners
claimed to be appointed under the said G.O., as Cook-cum-Helper by
the respective schools.
22. Subsequently, the Union Government framed the National Food
Security Act, 2013 with intent to provide food and nutritional security in
a human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantities
of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under
Section 39 thereof, the Union Government was empowered to frame
Rules for various schemes specified thereunder.
23. The Union Government had framed the Mid-Day Meal Rules,
2015 vide GSR 743(E), dated 30.09.2015. As per the said Rules, the
children studying in Classes I to VIII were entitled for Mid-Day Meals
having nutritional standards as specified in Schedule-II of the Act, free
of charge every day except on school holidays.
24. Rule 5 thereof specifies the preparation of meals and
maintenance of standards and quality. As per Rule 5(2), every school
shall have the facility for hygienically cooking meals and the schools in
urban areas and in identified rural areas which have good road and
34
connectivity and viable cluster of schools, for the purpose of leveraging
efficiency gains, may use the facility of centralized kitchens. The School
Management Committee constituted under the Right to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 shall monitor the implementation of
the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and shall oversee quality of meals provided
to the children, the cleanliness of the place of cooking and the
maintenance of hygiene in the implementation of Mid Day Meal
Scheme.
25. Rule 8 provides for testing of hot cooked meal provided to
children to be evaluated and certified by the Government Food
Research Laboratory or any laboratory accredited or recognized by
law, so as to ensure that the meal meets with nutritional standards and
quality specified in Schedule-II of the Act. Rules 5, 7 and 8 thereof are
extracted below;
“5. Preparation of meals and maintenance of standards and
quality(1) The meal shall be prepared in accordance with the Mid Day
Meal guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to
time and in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II of the
Act.
(2) Every school shall have the facility for cooking meal in hygienic
manner and the schools in urban areas and in identified rural
areas which have good road connectivity and viable cluster of
schools, for the purpose of leveraging efficiency gains, may use
35the facility of centralised kitchens for cooking meals wherever
required in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central
Government and the meal shall be served to children at respective
school only.]
7. Role of School Management Committee (SMC) for
monitoring Mid-day Meals Scheme
1) The School Management Committee mandated under Right to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 shall also monitor
implementation of the Mid-day meal Scheme and shall oversee
quality of meals provided to the children, cleanliness of the place
of cooking and maintenance of hygiene in implementation of mid
day meal scheme.
(2) The Headmaster or Headmistress of the school shall be
empowered to utilise any fund available in school for the purpose
of continuation of Mid Day Meal Scheme in the school in case of
temporary unavailability of food grains, cooking cost, etc., in the
school. The utilised fund shall be reimbursed to the school
account immediately after receipt of mid day meal funds.
8. Testing of Meals by Accredited Laboratories
(1) Hot cooked meal provided to children shall be evaluated and
certified by the Government Food Research Laboratory or any
laboratory accredited or recognized by law, so as to ensure that
the meal meets with the nutritional standards and quality specified
in Schedule II to the Act. The Food and Drugs Administration
Department of the State may collect samples to ensure the
nutritive value and quality of the meals.
36
(2) The Department referred to in sub-rule (1) shall collect the
samples at least once in a month from randomly selected schools
or centralised kitchens and send such samples for examination to
the laboratories referred to in sub-rule (1).”
26. With the passage of time and with the advent of the Mid-Day
Meal Rules, 2015, the State is now under a statutory obligation to
provide quality cooked food to the children in Classes I to VIII and a
structured policy decision is required to be taken about the modalities
of implementation of the statutory obligation. The case law that was
cited by the Respondents was rendered vis-Ã -vis the G.O.Ms.No.94,
dated 25.11.2002, where the Mid-Day Meal was served through an
Implementing Agency and on a contract.
27. Though the Petitioners were initially appointed through the
Implementing Agency, with changed scenarios and introduction of Mid
Day Meal Rules, 2015, they were directly being paid Rs.3,000/- as
honorarium from 2019 onwards, which is being shared by the State and
Central Governments. In the context here, the term ‘honorarium’ is just
another word for ‘wages/salary’.
28. Once, the Cook-cum-Helper was directly being paid a monthly
honorarium, a relationship of employer and employee is established
and consequently, a right is created against feudalistic acts of removal.
This view of employee-employer relationship is further bolstered by the
37
fact that Respondent No.12, an individual, was appointed as Cook-
cum-Helper in place of the Petitioner vide R.C.No.SPL/MDM/2019
dated 22.10.2024.
29. It is now well settled that even a contract employee or an
outsourced employee cannot be terminated on stigmatic grounds
without conducting an enquiry in compliance with the principles of
natural justice (See: (i) Swathi Priyadarshini Vs State of Madhya
Pradesh5 (ii) UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs Brijesh
Kumar and Anr6 (iii) K.Raghupathi Vs State of UP7 and (iv) the
State of A.P, rep. by its Principal Secretary v. K. Madhu Phani
and another8.
30. The manner of conducting an enquiry should not be a formality
to put a stamp on the decision already made. The issuance of a show
cause notice based on factual allegations against the individual and the
determination on the explanation is no enquiry at all, when the
allegations are denied by the delinquent. Though the rigour of A.P.C.S.
Rules, 1991 or Rules akin thereto may not apply, the procedure
adopted while terminating the petitioners engaged with the work of mid-
5
2024 INSC 620
6
2024 INSC 638
7
2022(6) SCC 346
8
(2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB)
38
day meals should be fair and in compliance with the principles of
natural justice.
31. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the aspect of
natural justice in Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.,9 would be relevant
here. Paragraphs 8 and 15 read as under;
“8. Natural justice is another name for common sense justice.
Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are
principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice
is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way.
Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human
values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the
narrow and restricted considerations which are usually
associated with a formulated law involving linguistic
technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of
justice which has to determine its form.
15. Natural justice has been variously defined by different
Judges. A few instances will suffice. In Drew v. Drew and
Leburn6 (Macq at p. 8) Lord Cranworth defined it as ‘universal
justice’. In James Dunbar Smith v. R.7 (AC at p. 623) Sir
Robert P. Collier, speaking for the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, used the phrase ‘the requirements of
substantial justice’, while in Arthur John Spackman v.
Plumstead District Board of Works5 (AC at p. 240), the Earl of
Selborne, L.C. preferred the phrase ‘the substantial
requirement of justice’. In Voinet v. Barrett8 (LJRD at p. 41),
Lord Esher, M.R. defined natural justice as ‘the natural sense9
(2009) 12 SCC 40
39of what is right and wrong’. While, however, deciding Hopkins
v. Smethwick Local Board9 Lord Fasher, M.R. instead of using
the definition given earlier by him in Voinet case 8 chose to
define natural justice as ‘fundamental justice’. In Ridge v.
Baldwin10 (QB at p. 578), Harman, L.J., in the Court of Appeal
countered natural justice with ‘fair play in action’, a phrase
favoured by Bhagwati, J. in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 11.
H.K. (an infant), In re12 (QB at p. 530), Lord Parker, C.J.,
preferred to describe natural justice as ‘a duty to act fairly’. In
Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy. of State for Environment 13
Lord Russell of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described
natural justice as ‘a fair crack of the whip’ while Geoffrey
Lane, L.J. in R. v. Secy. of State for Home Affairs, Ex Parte
Hosenball14 preferred the homely phrase ‘common fairness’
(emphasised).”
32. In the opinion of this court, the minimum fairness that needs to
adhere is that the factual allegation in the show cause notice should
contain the details of the nature of the complaint with particulars of oral
and documentary evidence on how the allegations is sought to be
established. The documentary evidence should be enclosed along with
the show cause notice. On denial of the allegations, a date for
conducting an enquiry with a liberty to the delinquent to cross-examine
the witnesses in support of the complaint and also lead counter
evidence to deny the allegation. Thereafter, an opportunity to hear and
then a decision with requisite reasons would be a fair process.
40
33. In majority of cases here, the procedure that was followed was
that a show cause notice was issued making factual allegations and
impugned orders came to be passed on being dissatisfied with the
explanation. In the opinion of this court, the process adopted by the
respondents is shallow and termination on a show of enquiry cannot be
sustained. The procedure adopted does not even come close to the
rudimentary requirements of natural justice and it appears to green-light
a decision already made. Long years of service cannot be wished away
by the authorities with such shallow procedures.
34. The question now is the way forward in the light of individuals
having been appointed in place of the petitioners as cook-cum-helpers.
The job of Cook-cum-Helpers and posts associated thereto is labour-
intensive and mid-day meals require dynamic day-to-day management
and the uncertainty of employment would hamper mid-day meals.
Therefore, in this scenario, it would be appropriate to direct the
Respondents to conduct a post facto enquiry within a specific time
frame.
35. In the light of the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with
following directions;
(i) The Respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry in
compliance with the principles of natural justice as held above
and pass appropriate orders;
41
(ii) The time frame for conclusion of the enquiry is two (2) months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;
(iii) No order as to costs.
36. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 20.02.2026
IS
42
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.Nos.6854, 6264, 2914, 6477 of 2025, W.P.Nos.21842, 28035,
28697, 30422, 30423, 30426 and 31329 of 2024
Date: 20.02.2026
IS
