1 Asha Mid Day Meal Agency v. The State of Telangana. Rep.' by its Principal Secretary

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.8643 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School education. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners are contending that they are maintaining Mid Day Meal Scheme in respondent Nos.7 and 8 schools since 2009. They are maintaining the said scheme with quality and hygienic conditions without any complaints from the students, parents, teaching staff and school education committee constituted for the purpose of monitoring and supervision of Mid Day Mea-ls scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 24.LL.2OO2. Even then, 4ft respondent has issued impugned proceedings dated

17.O3.2O25 requesting 9th respondent to supply Mid day meals to the 7th and 86 respondent schools on the ground that 4ft respondent has received complaints dated O4.O2.2O25 and O5.O2.2O25 from Smt. N I I KL,J W.P.No.a643 of 2025 2 Sangeetha, Chairman, Amma Adarsha Patashala Committee, MPPS, Kothaguda in respect of respondent Nos.7 alrd 8 schools expressing her concern with regard to quality and quantit5r of the food being served is sub- standard in terms of quality and quantity. Therefore, 4th respondent expelled the petitioners from serving the Mid Day Meals to respondent Nos.7 and 8 schools. 4tt\ respondent reinstated 8th respondent to supply Mid Day Meals to the respondent Nos.7 and 8.

3. Challenging the said proceedings petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the impugned proceedings of 2"d respondent are contrary to G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.11.2OO2 and conunon order dated 30.12 2014 in w.P.No.9800 0f 2013 and batch.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for school education instructions would submit that 4rh respondent received complaints from students and from Smt. N. Sangeetha, Chairman, Amma Adarsha patashala Committee, MPPS, Kothaguda stating that food, quality KL,J W.P.No.a643 of 2025 3 and quantit5r wise is sub-standard. There is disturbance in the respondent Nos.7 and 8 schools. On receipt of complaints dated O4.O2.2O25 ald O5.O2.2O25 opportunity was given to the petitioner to recti$r the said mistake. They have not rectified. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspect vide proceedings dated

17.03.2025 4t respondent expelled both the petitioners from serving Mid Day Meal Scheme. There is no error in 1t.

5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is opt to note that vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.LL.2OO2, the Government has issued orders for implementation of Mid day meals (cooking program) for the children of Classes I to VII in all government and aided primary and upper primary school in the state. When there is violation of the said guidelines, aggrieved persons filed W.P.No.9800 of 2Ol3 and batch. This Court considered the said guidelines and other aspects and passed common order I Lt KL,J w.P No.8643 of 2025 4 dated 3O. 12.2014. Paragraph No.15 of the said common order is relevant and the same is extracted below: "15. Till the State Government takes appropriate steps, as above, it is necessar5r 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 alt levels, shall follow the directions as under: a) Wherever the concemed review committee notices dehciency 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 shatl 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 tie existing agency, the same procedure as envisaged in clause (6) of the guidelines shall be fotlowed for selecting a new implementing agency to replace the existing agency. d) In all such cases where tt-re edsting implementing agency is replaced bv a new agency, such aggrieved implementing agency shall be entitled to seek reconsideration of such decision before the Nodal KL,J W.P No.8643 of2O25 5 OIIicer 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 eisting implementing agencies are continued in terms of the said interim order, they shall continue to oPerate tl.e 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 ald after hearing the existing implementing agency, take appropriate decision in the matter relating to the continuation or otherwise of the existing implementing agency.'

6. It is also relevant to note that 4th respondent has I issued proceedings dated 09.06.2023 requesting the 9e respondent to supply Mid day meals to the children studying in the Government/MPPs/ZPHS 1n Gandipet Mandal, Moinabad Mandal, Rajendrangar Mandal and Sherilingampally Mandals in R.R.District from

12.06.2023 for the academic year 2023-2024. Cooks working in the said schools hled a writ petition vide W.P.No.29086 of 2023 challenging tlle said proceedings- Vide order dated 09.06.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to KL,J w.P.No.a643 of2025 6 stricfly implement the guide lines issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms.No.94 dated 25. 1 1.2022. 7. Vide proceedings dated 2O.O8.2O24, the District Educationa-l Officer, Niz-amabad diskict directed the 5fr respondent therein to replace MDM (Mid Day Meals) cooking agency for serving MDM food at Government (girls) High School, Kasabgally, Nizamabad, as illegal' The same was under challenge in W.P.No.25867 of 2024. Vide order dated 20.09.2024 this Court considering the guidelines issued by the Government vide G-O.Ms.No'94 dated 25. LL.2OO2 and directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid batch, set-aside the said proceeclings and directed the l"t respondent therein to comply wit]l the directions issued vide order dated 30.12.2014 in W.P.No.9800 of 2013 and batch. Even then, l"t respondent has not framed guidelines and issued rules in compliance with said common order.

8. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings dated L7.O3.2O25 are in violation of guidelines issued by the l"t I I I KL.J W.P.No.a643 of 2O2S 7 respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 24.1I.2002 and directions of this Court in conunon order dated 30.12.2O14 in W.p.No.9800 of 2013. 9' In the impugned proceedings dated 17.o3 .2o2s, 4tt respondent has referred about complaints dated O4.O2.2O25 and OS.O2.2O2S of Smt. N. Sangeetfra, Chairman, Amma Adarsha patashala Committee, MppS, Kothaguda. But he has not complied with the directions issued by this Court vide common order dated 30.12.2014 in W.p.No.98O0 of 2013 and batch. On receipt of the said complaints, respondent No.4 has to inform the petitioners about the nature of complaints and afford opportunigr to them to rectiS the same. There is no mention about the compliance of the same. Therefore, 4th respondent cannot state that he has complied with the aforesaid directions. The sarne a_re not mentioned in the impugned proceedings. Improvement in his version now is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the I I KI.J w.P.No.86a3 of2O25 8 I Hon'ble Apex Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL V. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHIT.

10. Viewed from any angle, impugned proceedings dated 17.O3.2O25 of 4th respondent are in violation of guidelines issued by 1"r respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.1I.2OO2 and directions issued by this Court vide common orcler dated 30.12.2014 in W.p.No.9gOO of 2013 batch. Therefore, the same are set_aside. However, liberty granted to 4s respondent to initiate action afresh strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25.|12OO2 and directives issued by this Court in the common order dated 3O. l2.2ol4 in W.p.No.9SOO of 2013 and batch. 1 1. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that 2"d respondent has not issued any rules/guidelines with respect to implementation of the decision of the review committee at all levels including for replacing of existing agency by a new agency in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 25. l |.ZOO2 and as ' rlza arn 9;r \ To, KL,J W.P-No.4643 of 2025 9 directed by this Court vide common order dated

30.12.2014 in W.P.No.9800 of 2013. Therefore, 2"d respondent is directed to issue appropriate mles/guidelines 1n compliance with the aforesaid directions within 2 months from the date of receipt of coy of this order.

12. With the a-foresaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition sha,ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. The DJrector of School Education, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 4. The District Education Officer, Ranga Reddy Dist, Telangana. 5 The Tahasildar, Sherlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana 6 The Mandal Education officbr, Sherhngampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist , 7. The H"ead Master, Z.P.H.S School, Kothaguda, Sherlingampally(M), Ranga Telangana. Reddy Dist., Telangana. B. The l-iead Master, I/PPS, Kothaguda, Sherlingampally (M), Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana. 9. One CC to -SRl. 10 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD Advocate [OPUC] I 1 . Two iCs to Gp for School Education, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad lOUTl 'l2.Two CD Copies KKS BS S I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 t'c l'ot)AY ORDER WP.No.8643 at 2025 T'.ASHE't I 5 27 t{AH M * rl E z a f+ * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Gr.r''W