Kerala Administrative Tribunal Directs State Govt To Decide Upon Rules For Appointment Of Supervisor (ICDS)

Kerala Administrative Tribunal directed the State to take a decision within three months in the matter of the Service Rules for appointment to Supervisor (ICDS) under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) in the light of guidelines issued by the Central Government. The Kerala Government Service Rules and the circular issued by the Central Government in this matter are contradictory.

The Kerala Government by an amendment in 2012 to Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Services, 2010 changed the manner and ratio for appointment to the post of Supervisor (ICDS). All the appointments would be made through PSC only. Of the reported vacancies, 58% is to be filled by open candidates, 29% from Anganwadi workers, 11% from Anganwadi workers having degrees and 2% by promotion from the feeder categories. This came into force from 01.01.2014

Meanwhile, the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Children Development Department issued a circular on 15.09.2015. The circular had guidelines regarding the appointment to the post of Supervisor (ICDS). The guidelines stipulated that 50% of vacancies is to be filled from Anganwadi workers with 10 years of experience and having the prescribed educational qualifications. The remaining 50% is to be filled by direct recruitment.

The Applicants are Anganwadi workers having degree qualifications. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the subject matter comes in the concurrent list, the rules of the Centre will prevail.

The Tribunal observed that the guidelines issued by the Central Government does not have the effect of a Rule or Regulation. However, the Court observed that the State Government need to consider the said guidelines and if necessary, amend the service rules. The Central Government monitors the scheme and the Central Government contributes financially to the scheme.

Until a decision is made on these guidelines, the rules of the State Government will be in operation.

A committee had already been constituted to suggest amendments to the service rules in 2017. Subsequently, various proceedings regarding the guidelines came before the Tribunal. The Government always maintained that the matter was under consideration. The Tribunal thought it fit to fix a time limit and directed to make a decision within three months. The Government had also tried to appoint candidates advised from Employment Exchange provisionally. Various cases were filed before the Tribunal and High Court challenging this attempt. Finally, no appointment was made through employment exchange.

The right of the Anganwadi Workers accruing under the Government of India Scheme by 'promotion' to the position of Integrated Child Development Services (“ICDS”) Supervisors has also been recognized by the Tribunal in its common decision.

The team of Applicants, i.e., the Anganwadi Workers were ably represented for arguments by the Lead Counsel Advocate Laila Sunil.

It was pointed out to the Tribunal that the Central Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India had issued Circular No. 1-2.2014-CD.1 on September 15, 2015, addressing all the Government Secretaries dealing with the subject scheme in all the states and union territories stipulating guidelines for the recruitment of ICDS Supervisors.

She also pointed out that the guidelines stipulated for the appointment to the post of ICDS Supervisor require 50% of the vacancies to be filled up by appointment from amongst Anganwadi Workers holding 10 years of experience and possessing the prescribed educational qualification as per the recruitment rules for the post by way of 'promotion'. The remaining 50% of vacancies need to be filled by direct recruitment.

However, despite the abovementioned scheme, even after a lapse of over more than 8 years, no amendments in tune with the directions issued by the Central Government were effected by the State Government. Therein, the concerned department of the State Government had not implemented the same in the State and had failed to amend the special rules.

It was argued by her that the ICDS scheme was introduced for the entire development and welfare of the women and children in the country. Further, it was contended by her that the legislative power in respect of the matter falls under the Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, apart from the financial participation offered by the Central Government, and therein it was heavily contended that the decision of the Central Government shall prevail in respect of the operation of the scheme.

After hearing the extensive arguments made on behalf of the Anganwadi Workers, the Tribunal directed the Government of Kerala and the other members of the concerned department to amend the special rules in tune with the guidelines issued by the Central Government under the circular on a priority basis within a time frame of three months.

Counsel for Petitioners: Laila I.S., Kaleeswaram Raj, Varun C. Vijay, Thulasi K. Raj

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Jibu T.S., P. C. Sasidharan

Case Title: Sujitha T. & Others v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: OA 81 of 2020 and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 366

Click Here To Read/Download Order