Disposed

Teegutla Geetha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2017WP/5636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the discontinuation of petitioners as Mid-Day Meal Programme agencies without notice or order. Relying on a prior order, the Court directed respondents to pass appropriate orders based on pending inquiries and communicate them to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to pass appropriate orders based on existing inquiries and communicate the same to the petitioners.

Teegutla Geetha Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5636 of 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.4 to 11 in discontinuing the petitioners as Agencies of Mid-Day Meal Programme in the respective Schools in Karimnagar District without issuing any notice or passing any order.

¶4

On behalf of respondent Nos.8 and 9, a counter-affidavit is filed stating that the petitioners are working in different schools and a Three-Men Committee consisting of MRO, MPDO and MEO selected a group called as ‘Bhagyalakshmi Mahila Group’ on 04.08.2008. Petitioner Nos.3 to 6 are cooking food for the children. However, complaints were received from the Headmaster, students and the Management Committee of the Schools with regard to the cooking and the Three Men Committee enquired twice and found that the petitioners are not cooking food properly for the children as prescribed in the menu. The Headmaster of the Schools along with the parents of the children conducted a meeting and passed a resolution on 01.02.2016 to remove the said four members from the Group. Three other ladies, namely Choppari Lakshmi, Neerati Rajitha and Salpala Saritha are temporarily engaged to cook the food for implementation of the Mid-Day Meal Programme from 01.02.2016.

¶5

¶6

The grievance of the petitioners is that they were discontinued without passing any orders and the same is bad in law.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order, dated 13.12.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33893 of 2011, wherein this Court directed the respondents not to discontinue the services of the petitioners without passing written orders.

¶8

In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of directing respondent Nos.8 and 9 to pass appropriate orders based on the enquires already conducted and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶9

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J Dt:11.04.2017 kdl

¶11

Teegutla Geetha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teegutla Geetha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Begari Santhosh, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary

M/s Arenco Catering Vs The Union Of India

G. Veeraiah Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Gonthina Ramakanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunchala Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Dolayi Meena Madhuri Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh