IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 15900 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- TRAINED NURSERY TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T 467 KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, K.M.VASUDEVAN NAIR. BY MR. P.SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE) MR.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22556 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15900/2008 APPENDIX, PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 7.3.86 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF WOMEN WELFARE. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.3.05 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 1.1.83 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEND BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE COVERING LETTER DT. 5.8.06. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 20.2.07. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 22.8.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 29.10.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 17.5.08 SEND TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 13.5.08 SUBMITTED BY THE ONE OF THE ASSOCIATE OF THE PETITIONER SRI.M.M.IQBAL TO THE DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15.5.05 SEND BY THE STATE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15.9.05 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT , MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE. P12:- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED FOR APPROVING AND CONTINUING THE ANGANWADI WORKDERS TRAINING CENTERS. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1-2/84PAT DT. 14.2.84 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P14:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.3.90 ISSUED BY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL KERALA TO THE PETITIONER. P15:- COPY OF THE ONE OF SUCH LETTERS DT. 20.6.91 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER . P16:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11-15/98-TR1 DT. 15.5.99 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES, SISUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR ''UDISHA'' PROJECT. P17:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10.5.06 ISSUED BY THE SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. W.P.(C) NO.15900/2008 P18:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29.9.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER AND THE ACCOMPANYING ANNEXURES. P18:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.NO.4012/81/99 DT. 7.9.82 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA ( IA. NO 15787/08.) P19:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD BANK ASSISTED ICDS TRAINING PROGRAMME ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. P20:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.8940/B1/2006 SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DT. 21.2.08 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P21:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DT. 3.3.08. P22:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3/927)/90 TR. DT. 1.9.90 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P23:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NI/TRG/ICDS/30/99/34832 DT. 17.3.89. P24:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NI/TRG/AW/GEN/90-91/13717DT. 12.10.90 ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC CO- OPERATION AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT. P25:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT. 3.1.09. P26:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DT. 3.1.09. R1(A):- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES. R1(B):- COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R1(c):- COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.15900/2008 & 22556/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these two writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C).15900 in the first instance and I will refer to the documents in the connected writ petition wherever it is necessary. 2. The petitioner a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, is running an Anganwadi Workers Training Centre at Kaimanam, for training Anganwadi workers and helpers. The said centre run by the petitioner was originally approved and recognized by the Government of India, as per order dated 7.9.1982 (produced and marked as Ext.P1(a)) in Writ Petition No.22556/2008. Anganwadi Workers Training Centre imparts job training to Anganwadi workers and helpers including W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 2 basic training and periodical refresher training, as directed by the Government of India in terms of the syllabi and curriculum prescribed by the National Institute of Public Co-operative and Child Development, New Delhi. The basic training being imparted now-a-days is for one month. Five Institutes were recognized in the year 1982, petitioners’ institution being one of them. There are 15 Government approved Anganwadi Training Centres in Kerala. Anganwadi workers Training Centres are approved by the Government of India under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. Reference is made to Ext.P1 order issued in this behalf with particular reference to the fact that no financial burden is imposed on the State Government in implementing the programme. 3. The institutions of the petitioners in these two writ petitions have been in existence from 1982 onwards and are regularly involved in imparting W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 3 training for Anganwadi workers under the scheme floated and formulated by the Government of India and implemented through the State Governments. Grants that are being made by the Central Government for the trainees are disbursed to the students. Their education and accommodation are subsidized and even sponsored by the Government of India. 4. Since the petitioners' institutions have been approved, they appointed staff. The following is the staff pattern approved for the Anganwadi Workers Training Centre and implemented by the petitioners. Sl.No. Designation No.of Post 1. Principal 1 2. Full time Instructor 2 3. Accounts Clerk 1 4. Peon 1 5. Chowkidar 1 6. Warden 1 W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 4 5. Sufficient number of part time instructors have also been appointed, claim the petitioners. Class rooms have been constructed, hostel facilities have been established. Facilities for recreation of the trainees are also part of the infrastructure, it is submitted. Substantial recurring expenses are also incurred. 6. There arose a dispute when claims made by the petitioners for fixed cost incurred by them was not paid by the respondents. Ext.P6 reply was given to the second respondent. Though under Ext.P7, first respondent informed the petitioner that steps will be taken to send trainees to the Training Centres from all 163 project centres, petitioners found that no such trainees have been sent to their institute from 1st of April, 2008. Though this was brought to the notice of the respondents, since the situation was not rectified, they approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 5 (i). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents to send AnganwadiWorkers and helpers to the Anganwadi Training at Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram owned by the petitioner, for training regularly and continuously and without any fail. (ii). Direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the fixed costs for the Anganwadi Workers Training Centres, Kaimanam for the period from April 2006 to July, 2006 amounting to a total sum of Rs.1,24,627/- with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from July 2006 till the date of payment. 7. A statement and counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents is to the effect that Anganwadi Training Centres require approval from year to year and a notification Ext.R1(b), was issued inviting W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 6 applications for Anganwadi Workers Training Centres, for the year 2008-09. Existing applicants could also apply. But the petitioners did not apply. Out of 21 fresh applicants, 13 were selected and trainees were sent to such selected centres. Petitioners did not respond to Ext.R1(b). They have now approached this Court seeking a direction to the Government to send them trainees, which they are not entitled to. 8. Reply affidavits have been filed by the petitioners. I heard Mr.P.Santhalingam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Muraleedharan and Smt.Sudha Devi, learned senior Government Pleader. 9. The fact that the petitioners are running the approved Anganwadi Workers Training Centres since 1982 is not disputed. The fact that the persons are being regularly trained in the W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 7 petitioners' establishment for the past more than 25 years has also not been disputed. There is also no suggestion or allegation as on record, that either the quality of the training being imparted in the petitioners' institution or the facilities otherwise made available in their institutions are inadequate or insufficient. 10. The guidelines relating to recognition, approval and closing down of Anganwadi Training Centres, were brought into force in the year 1999. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P16, Ext.R1(a) being a part of the same. Mr.Santhalingam made a reference to clause 9 of Ext.P16 (Annexure-XV) which provides for the approval of the Government of India for opening every Anganwadi Training Centre. Approval will also be required for shifting an Anganwaid training Centre from one NGO to another. Funds for running training centres are obviously provided by the Government of India. W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 8 Conditions brought into existence by Ext.P16, which is of the year 1999, will have to be made applicable to the existing Anganwadi Training Centres. 11. Learned Government Pleader makes reference to clause 8 of Ext.P16 which postulates the Anganwadi Training Centres as temporary in nature and continued on an year to year basis, depending upon the needs of the State Government. 12. As has been noted above, training institutes being run by the petitioners are in existence since the year 1982. They have been approved by the Government of India. No doubt it will be open to the Government of India to stipulate that these existing training centres need not function from a period onwards. This could be resultant upon a diminishing need for a training Centre in a particular area. A direction to close down a particular training centre may also be justified W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 9 because of the inadequate facilities in a training Centre. Both these contingencies have not arisen in the case of the petitioners. Any institution which was originally approved by the Government of India and continued thereafter, cannot all of a sudden, be treated as unrecognized and despatch of trainees to such institution cannot be withheld solely for the said reason. 13. Learned Government Pleader submits that applications were invited from institutions for starting Anganwadi institutes as per Ext.R1(b). Petitioners could have applied. They did not do so. Therefore, they cannot complain. It is further submitted that applications will again be invited for the year 2009-10 onwards. 14 I find no reason not to accept the case of the petitioners that they did not know of the requirements of applying afresh, in response to W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 10 Ext.R1(b), in spite of the fact that they have been in existence from 1982 onwards. Moreover, it will be necessary that existing approved institutes should not be treated on a par with fresh applicants. Existence of an infrastructure and the necessity to maintain them cannot be lightly brushed aside. 15. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (i). Petitioners shall file an application, before the second respondent for continuing with their approval as an Anganwadi Training Centre in continuation of Ext.P1(a) in W.P.(C). 22556/2008, within one month from today. (ii). Such application shall be treated by the second respondent as one for continuing approval of the existing institution. W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 11 (iii). The fact that the petitioners did not apply for the year 2008-09 shall not constitute any disability in considering the petitioners' application for 2009-10, provided the same is submitted as aforementioned. (iv). Unless the second respondent, on due enquiry, is convinced that there is any factor which constitutes disability qua the petitioners, they shall not be denied fresh batch of trainees for the year 2009-10 onwards treating them as approved institutions for the said year. If there is any disability, then a denial of continuance of approval can be decided by the second respondent, only after notice to the petitioners and after hearing them. Order, if any, to be passed by the second respondent shall give reasons for a decision that he may take in this regard. (v). The amounts that are due to the petitioners by way of fixed cost, already incurred by them, prior to 1.4.2008 shall be disbursed to them within three W.P.(C)s.15900 & 22556 12 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Quantification of such amounts shall also be done by the second respondent. I make it clear that the amounts need be disbursed to the petitioners', only if the petitioners are otherwise entitled. If fresh applications are received for the year 2009-10 and if no disability or inadequacy is detected in so far as the petitioners are concerned, then taking into account the fact that the approved institutions are in existence from 1982 onwards, such approved institutions including the petitioners shall be given preference to fresh applicants, if all other factors are equal. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs