Dismissed

Ravipati Jhansi Rani, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC21 Apr 2008WP/13775/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court considered a challenge to an order removing the petitioner as a cooking agent for a mid-day meal program. The Court held the petition misconceived as the removal followed a representation alleging unsatisfactory performance and subsequent enquiry, finding no case made out for relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed against the impugned order dated 31-07-2004 removing the petitioner.

Ravipati Jhansi Rani, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 13775 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ravipati Jhansi Rani, W/o. Raja Malleswara Rao, Resident of Degaramudi Village, Martoor Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Martoor Mandal, Martoor, Prakasam District.

¶12

2 The Mandal Educational Officer, Martoor Mandal, Martoor, Prakasam District.

¶13

3 Smt. Swarna Chennamma, W/o. Veeraiah,

¶14

R/o. Degaramudi Village, Martoor Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ declaring the order in Proceedings R.C.B. No. 486/2004 dated 31-7-2004 of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and politically motivated and consequently to set aside the same and to pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.PEDDA BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶21

W.P.NO.13775 OF 2004

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The writ petition is misconceived. It is directed against an order dated.31-07-2004 of the 1^st respondent changing a cooking agent for

¶24

making available mid-day meal for the students of the Mandal Parishad Elementary School, Degaramudi Village, Martoor Mandal, Prakasam District. The impugned order reads that the parents of the students represented that the petitioner who was earlier identified as a cooking agent was not serving palatable food and of the required quantity. On the basis of the representation, the Mandal Education Officer after enquiry submitted proposals for change of the cooking agent. These proposals were executed by the 1^st respondent and in lieu of the petitioner the 3^rd respondent was appointed as a cooking agent to serve mid-day meal to the students of the Mandal Parishad Elementary School.

¶25

The petitioner assails the order by stating that the Sarpanch of the village who is the Chairman of the Vidhya committee and parents of the children had given a representation to the 1^st respondent about the satisfactory conduct of the petitioner and that even without any allegation the impugned order has been passed.

¶26

The 1^st respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as a cooking agent from 01-01-2003 but was removed by the impugned order and the 3^rd respondent was appointed in her place in view of the allegations received from certain parents of the students, as also after a due enquiry by the MEO, Markapur who reported about the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. It is further stated that the parents had also filed a complaint petition before the MEO, which was enquired into by the said authority. All other allegations by the petitioner are denied. In the light of the averments in the counter-affidavit, which are not controverted by any subsequent pleadings, no case is made out for relief.

¶27

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

_________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶29

24^TH APRIL,2008 TSNR

Ravipati Jhansi Rani, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravipati Jhansi Rani, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahajan Latchaiah Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its Prl.Secretary

C.Rama Mohan, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Tirupati Sadaiah, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

T. Prasad Rao S/o late T. Appalakonda Vs The District Collector

P. Devender Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

The A.P. Govt, Press Employees Union, Vs The Verification/Returning Officer, and the Asst.