Katturi Venkateswaramma Vs Matta Rajeswari

Katturi Venkateswaramma, W/o Rajesh, aged about 39 years. Occ: Midday Meals Cooking Helper, R/o D. No. 4-40, Tippanagunta Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, NTR (Krishna) District.

¶10

Kodali Bujji, W/o Moshe, aged about 51 years, Occ: Helper, R/o D. No.

¶11

2-1, Tippanagunta Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, NTR (Krishna)^District.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/LEAVE PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Matta Rajeswari, W/o M. Anil, aged about 35 years, Occ: Midday Meals Cooking Helper, R/o D. No. 11-3, Tippanagunta Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, NTR (Krishna) District.

¶15

Bulla Ankamma, W/o Basavarao, aged about 56 years, Occ: Helper, R/o D. No. 4-1, Tippanagunta Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, NTR (Krishna) District.

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by it's PrI. Secretary,^School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

¶18

The District Education Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

¶19

The Mandal Education Officer, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶20

The Head Master, School Management Committee Mandal Pahshad Primary School, Tippanagunta Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶23

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 operation of orders made in WP No. 30069 of 2024 dated 20-12-2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2; SRI K. V. ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 5 to 7: GP FOR SCHOOL

¶25

EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

■-f

¶27

APHC010047022025

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-51 [3446] AT AMARAVATI

¶29

WRIT APPEAL NO: 79 of 2025

¶30

Katturi Venkateswaramma and another ...Appellants

¶31

Vs.
Matta Rajeswari and others
**********
Advocate for Appellants Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela
Advocates for Respondents Mr. K. V. Aditya Chowdary

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶34

DATE : 6th February 2025

¶35

PC :

¶36

The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters^Patenthas been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20.12.2024, passed in W.P.No.30069 of 2024.

¶37

The petitioners challenged the order of the School Management Committee terminating them as an agency to serve mid-day^meal in the school.

¶38

2

¶39

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.79 of 2025

¶40

The grievance of the petitioners was that principles of natural justice had been violated as no opportunity of being heard had been granted before terminating them.

¶41

It is in those circumstances that the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners as an agency to cook mid-day meal in the school and at the same time, granted liberty to the official respondents to take recourse to law by issuing show cause notice and calling for an explanation from the petitioners, if so required.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellants states that, on 22.11.2024, the appellants had already been engaged as an agency to serve mid-day meal in the said school and that the appellants ought to have also been provided an opportunity of being heard before the learned single Judge. It is stated that in an earlier case being W.A.No.868 of 2024, in the similar situation, the appeal preferred by the appellant, who had similarly been engaged as the appellants in the present case, has been allowed protecting the interests of the appellant.

¶43

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

It cannot be denied that the appellants ought to have been given

¶45

an opportunity of being heard before the learned single Judge which was certainly not done.

¶46

In our opinion, the matter does require to be remanded^tothe learned single Judge for consideration afresh. We, therefore, allow the Writ

¶47

3

¶48

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.79 of 2025

¶49

r ••

¶50

Appeal and direct rehearing of the matter by the learned single Judge. We, however, observe that the appellants, if already engaged in the interregnum with effect from 22.11.2024, would be permitted to^continue till the matter is

¶51

considered and decided on merits by the learned single Judge. No costs.

¶52

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SECTION OFFICER