WP/14057/2005 of Smt. A. Rama Devi, Vs The Project Director, Women AND Child Development Office, on 29 December 2005

ORAL ORDER:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

W.P.NO.14057 OF 2005

The petitioners four in number were working on an “honorarium” of Rs.600/-per month, as Instructors in Early Childhood Education Centres (ECEs) establishedunder the District Primary Education Project (DPEP). They were employed invarious centres in Koratla Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District. The centres weremanaged by ECEs School Committees in furtherance of a goal of universalization ofelementary education. According to the petitioners, there are 14 ECE centres inKoratla town.

Alongside the ECE centres scheme under the DPEP, is in place anotherscheme under the aegis of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) alsoworking for child welfare. At some stage, the State Government which is theimplementation agency of this ameliorative social project decided that this diarchybetween the ECE Centres and ICDS does not conduce to administrative efficiencyand decided to converge the two schemes. To effectuate the administrative decisionwas issued in G.O.Ms.No.49 Education (SE-PROG.I) Department dated 2.5.2000,spelling out the principles for convergence and for management of the post-convergence situation. The annexure to the G.O. set out the guidelines foroperationalising and effectuating the convergence dictated by G.O.Ms.No.49.

Paragraph (8) of these guidelines in Annexure I to G.O.Ms.No.49 reads asunder:

“Wherever ECE centres of DPEP are existing and no Anganwadicentre is functioning presently and if the Women Development and ChildWelfare Department wish to open a new Anganwadi centre, the existingECE centre should be converted as AWC to provide above mentionedfacilities wherever the Mothers’ Committee is willing for such convergence.The instructor and helper of the ECE may be continued with the approval ofthe Mothers’ Committee, if they otherwise satisfy the criteria for appointmentand if the Mothers’ Committee so desire. If the Committee is not satisfiedthey may replace with other local persons following the duly prescribedprocedure.”

On the basis of guideline No.8 supra, the petitioners claim and contend thatas instructors in the Early Childhood Education project, they ought to have beenaccommodated and continued as Anganwadi workers and that the action of therespondents in not so continuing them as Anganwadi workers constitutes atransgression of guideline No.8. G.O.Ms.No.49 itself is an administrative order of theState and Annexure-I thereto is an instrument for the guidance of the concernedofficers or authorities who execute the various projects including the ICDS projects.These guidelines are not statutory instruments nor can their implementation besought by a Writ of Mandamus.

If the petitioner is aggrieved that respondents have violated the guidelinesissued by the State Government, the remedy for the petitioners is to prefer anappropriate complaint by way of a representation, to the State Government. Thelearned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare states that theappropriate department in the Government is the Department of WomenDevelopment and Child Welfare.

Petitioners are therefore at liberty to submit a representation to the PrincipalSecretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order setting out whatevergrievances they have. On such a representation made and within the time aforesaid,the Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare shall consider anddispose of the same and communicate the decision to the petitioners, within a periodof three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Any subsistinggrievance of the petitioners after the disposal of such representation, by theGovernment could be pursued before the appropriate civil court of competentjurisdiction or any other forum appropriate, as considered by the petitioners. A writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution does not however lie to implementadministrative instructions of the State.

On the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs.

Date: 29.12. 2005

cvm

GODA RAGHURAM, J

-------------------------------