Sukanya Sama Bhava Sangam. v. State Of Telangana.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.5376 of 2015 BETWEEN Sukanya Sama Bhava Sangam and another.

... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION(TG) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Petitioner No.1, self help group, was appointed as mid-day meal operator by order of the District Education Officer dated 03.09.2013 and petitioners claim to be working as such as per the said order till recently, but, complains of interference by the newly elected sarpanch, respondent No.5 and not allowing them to cook food.

2. The relief sought for in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WP.No.9800 of 2013 dated 30.12.2014. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of reiterating para 15 of the decision in WP.No.9800 of 2013, as under:

"15. Till the State Government takes appropriate steps, as above, it is necessary to issue certain directions as enumerated hereunder to be implemented by the respondent authorities. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

1.

The State Government shall take immediate steps to issue appropriate rules/guidelines with respect to the implementation of the decisions of the review committees, at all levels, including for replacement of an existing agency by a new implementing agency.

2.

Till the Government frames appropriate rules/guidelines, as directed above, all the respondent authorities, at all levels, shall follow the directions as under:

a) Wherever the concerned review committee notices deficiency in the functioning of the existing implementing agency, the concerned review committee shall communicate its views and suggestions to the respective committees entrusted with selection of an implementing agency.

b) On receipt of recommendations of the review committee, the respective committees, entrusted with selection of an implementing agency, shall notify such deficient implementing agency and consider the explanation of such deficient implementing agency in its meeting and shall take appropriate decision either to continue the implementing agency by giving opportunity to rectify the deficiencies or to replace the existing agency by a new agency.

c) If a decision is taken to replace the existing agency, the same procedure as envisaged in clause (6) of the guidelines shall be followed for selecting a new implementing agency to replace the existing agency. d) In all such cases where the existing implementing agency is replaced by a new agency, such aggrieved implementing agency shall be entitled to seek reconsideration of such decision before the Nodal Officer in terms of the guidelines and the decision of the Nodal Officer shall be final and binding on all the

parties.

3.

In all these cases, as stated above, this Court has already passed interim orders and wherever the existing implementing agencies are continued in terms of the said interim order, they shall continue to operate the mid-day meal programme. However, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate further action in terms of the directions hereinabove.

4. In all these cases, wherever a new agency is appointed to replace existing agency, the grievance of the new agency shall be considered by the respective committees, which are entrusted with selection of implementing agency, who shall, thereafter, follow the procedure prescribed hereinabove and after hearing the existing implementing agency, take appropriate decision in the matter relating to the continuation or otherwise of the existing implementing agency."

However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 18, 2015 Note: Office to attach a copy of the order in WP.No.9800 of 2013 dated 30.12.2014 along with this order. (B/o) DSK