Holding

Persons appointed as Child Development Project Officers and supervisors under the Integrated Child Development Scheme are employees of the State Government as contemplated by paragraph 47 of the scheme.

Summary

The respondents, appointed as supervisors and Child Development Project Officers (CDPO) under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) in West Bengal, claimed that they were State Government employees and sought mandatory promotion of 75% of CDPO and Assistant CDPO posts from female supervisors. The High Court held they were merely project employees and directed the State to follow the scheme’s promotion and recruitment rules. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scheme’s provisions, particularly paragraph 47, which states that staff are to be borne on the appropriate State cadres and paid according to State pay scales. The Court found that the respondents were indeed employees of the State Government, as reflected in the West Bengal Junior Social Welfare Service notifications and recruitment rules. Consequently, the Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, held that the State must treat them as regular State employees, and set aside the writ petition. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

The legal status of personnel appointed under the Integrated Child Development Scheme – whether they are State Government employees or project employees.
Interpretation of paragraph 47 of the ICDS scheme regarding staff bearing on State cadres.
The applicability of recruitment and promotion rules under the West Bengal Junior Social Welfare Service to ICDS personnel.
Whether the State is obligated to fill 75% of CDPO/ACDPO vacancies by promotion of female supervisors as per the scheme.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 309

Subjects

Integrated Child Development SchemeState employeeProject employeePromotionGender reservationRecruitment rulesPublic Service CommissionService conditions

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 229

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. A
v.
KABER I KHASTAGIR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7206 of 2008)
DECEMBER 10, 2008 B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

t Child and Family Welfare:

Integrated Child Development Scheme - Paragraph 47 C
- Child Development Project Officer appointed under the
Scheme, are employees of State Government and not project
employees.

Respondent 1 to 3 were appointed as supervisors in
0
the Integrated Child Development Scheme Project. The
said Scheme was introduced by the Government of India
through the Department of Human Resources
Development for integrated delivery of certain services to
pre-school children, pregnant and lactating women. The
object of the Scheme was to improve the health and E
nutritional status of children and women and to reduce
the incidents of school drop-outs and physical and social
welfare and development of the child.

In the month of October, 2002, respondents received F
interview letters asking them to appear before the Public
Service Commission for selection to the promotional
post of CDPO and ACDPO. No panel was ever published
thereafter by the State Government and its authorities in
their capacity as the Implementing Agency. However, all G
of a sudden a list of candidates appointed on promotion
to the post of CDPO was published on 23.2.2004, which
did not conform to the procedure with the result that a
large number of under-graduate male employees from
229 H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A different zones of the cadre were promoted to the post
of CDPO and ACDPO. Despite several representations ~
made to the State Government and the Director of
Women and Child Development and Social Welfare of the
State Government, no steps were taken to alleviate the ·
B grievances of the respondents. The respondents filed a
writ petition. The Single Judge of.the High Court held that
although the State was acting as a nodal agency, the
employees under the Scheme were not Government 1
employees but Project employees and that if and when
c the Project was withdrawn, their employment would also
cease. It also directed that only 25% of the vacancies for
the posts of CDPO could.be filled up by direct recruitment
and the rest by promotion, as prescribed under the
Scheme, subject to the candidates having requisite
qualifications. It was also directed that the State
0
Government should ensure that the posts should be filled
up by lady officers as far as practicable.

The Division Bench of High Court upheld the
decision of Single Judge and came to a definite finding
E that the respondents were all employed in the ICDS
Project and could not, therefore, be treated as State
Government employees. Hence the instant appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
F HELD: 1. The persons appointed as Child
Development Project Officers of the l·ntegrated Child
Development Scheme Project were employees of the
State Government as· contemplated under Paragraph 47
of the Scheme. [Para 27] [244-D]
G
2.1. Paragraph 35 of the Integrated Child
Development Scheme clearly provides that though the
same was a Centrally-sponsored scheme, its
implementation was left to the respective State
H Governments with 100% financial assistance from the
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KABERI 231
KHASTAGIR & ORS.

Central Government for inputs other than supplementary A
nutrition which was identified as the responsibility of the
State Government. Paragraph 47 of the Scheme, makes
it clear that even though funds for the Scheme would be
provided by the Central Government, the staff would be
borne on the appropriate cadres of the States which B
would sanction the posts in the appropriate
corresponding State pay scale. In the face of such
provision it is difficult to accept that the respondents
were Project workers and not employees of the State
Government. [Para 26] [243-H; 244-A-C] c
2.2. The notification dated 3rd June, 1983, issued by
the Relief and Welfare Department, Department of
Government of West Bengal provides for the constitution
of the West Bengal, Junior Social Welfare Service which
includes Child Development Project Officers of the ICDS D
Project. From the orders of appointment issued in favour
of respondents, it is apparent that the service conditions
of the respondents were also to be that as were
applicable to other government servants of the same
category under the Rules and Orders of the Government. E
[Para 27] [244-E-F] ·

2.3. Even the Rules made on 11th October, 1985 in
supersession of the earlier Rules framed by the
Department of Relief and Welfare, Government of West F
... Bengal, dated 23rd March, 1981, which deals with the
.,_
method of and the qualifications required for recruitment
to posts included in the West Bengal Junior Social
Welfare Services under the Welfare Branch of the Relief
and Welfare Department of the State Government G
provides that the Appointing Authority would be the
Governor of West Bengal and that the method of
recruitment would be by selection on the results of the
West Bengal Civil Services (Executive) Examination or by
promotion on the basis of a preliminary written test to be
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A conducted by the Public Service Commission, West
Bengal, for screening of candidates, followed by
interview of the successful candidates by the said
Commission. Since the ICDS Project was included under
the W.B.J.S.W.S., the said Rules of 1985 would no doubt
B be applicable to the Officers of the said Scheme as well.
[Para 28] [244-G-H; 245-A-C]

2.4. On 16th December, 1989 further Rules were
made in the Relief and Welfare Department (Welfare
Branch) of the Government of West Bengal relating to
C recruitment of Supervisors in the ICDS Project which
again provides that the Appointing Authority would be the
Directorate of Social Welfare, West Bengal. A similar
notification dated 23rd December, 2002, was issued by the
Department of Women and Child Development and Social
D Welfare, Government of West Bengal, regarding the. post
of ACDPO where again the Appointing Authority is the
Director of Social Welfare, West Bengal. [Para 29] [245- \--
D-EJ
E State of Haryana v.Piara Singh and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC
118 and Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (19S7) 4 sec
34, referred to.
Case Law Reference:

F (1992) 4 sec 118 referred to Para 24
(1987) 4 sec 34 referred to Para 24
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7206 of 2008. ~
I
G
From the Judgment and final Order dated 25.7.2007 of the
High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 796 of 2007.

K.K. Venugopal, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ankur Talwar,
Saumya Kundu for the Appellant.
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KABERI 233
KHASTAGIR & ORS.

Apurba Lal Basu, N.R. Choudhary, Somnath Mukherjee, A
~ Arup Banerjee, Advs./lntervenor in IA 1 in SLP(C) No. 16547/
07.
-·-
Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli for
Respondent nos. 1 to 3. B
Anveswari, N. Annapoorni for the respondent no.4 .
..... Apurba Lal Basu, N.R. Choudhary, Somnath Mukherjee,
t
Arup Banerjee for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and lmpleaders in
SC 16547/07. c
' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Al TAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein claim to have been D
appointed in the Integrated Child Development Scheme Project
(hereinafter referred to as 'ICDS'). The said Scheme was
introduced by the Government of India through the Department
of Human Resources Development for integrated delivery of
certain services to pre-school children, pregnant and lactating E
women. The object of the Scheme was to improve the health
and nutritional status of children and women and to reduce the
incidences of school drop-outs and physical and social welfare
and development of the child.
\
3. According to the writ petitioners, voluntary organizations F
...., I
and local bodies were given priority to act as Implementing
Agencies of the Scheme. However, in some States, such as
West Bengal, no voluntary organizations or local bodies were
recommended and the State Government itself was appointed
as the Implementing Agency to run and/or implement the GI
... Scheme within the territories of West Bengal.

. f
'1 4. ·it was also the case of the writ petitioners that the
Scheme provided that all actions and decisions had to be taken
by the State Government, with the approval of the Central H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

·,
A Government, which agreed to fund the entire project. It is the
further case of the writ-petitioners that according to the staff ).,..

pattern for giving effect to the ICDS Project, the petitioners
were appointed as Supervisors, which is the feeder post for 'l

promotion to the post of Assistant Child Development Officer
1

B (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACDPO'). The said promotional
post is also the feeder post for promotion to the post of Child
Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the
CDPO'). According to the writ petitioners, under the Scheme
1
it was mandatory on the part of the State Government to fill up
c the post of Supervisors from female candidates only and that
the same was also reflected in the Scheme where a specific
I

observation is said to have been made to fill up most of the
posts under the ICDS Project from female candidates since the
entire object and motto of the said Scheme was to promote
the welfare of women and children.
D I
5. It was also the case of the writ petitioners that a specific
provision had been made in the Scheme to frame rules and to
set out the procedure to fill up the post of CDPO under the
ICDS Project whereunder 75% of the CDPO posts were to be
E filled up from the female Supervisors of the ICDS Project, while
the remaining 25% could be filled up by direct recruitment. The
petitioners, therefore, contended that the State of West Bengal
was under an obligation to fill up .75% of the posts of CDPO
from the female Supervisors of the existing ICDS Project,
F subject however, to the fulfillment of the essential qualifications
~
prescribed. '¥

6. According to the writ petitioners, in the month of
October, 2002, they received two interview letters whereby they
were asked to appear before the Public Service Commission
G
for selection to the_post of CDPO and ACDPO. According to ,
~
the writ petitioners, no panel was ever published thereafter by
the State Government and its auJhorities in their capacity as r-
the Implementing Agency. However, all of a sudden a list of
candidates appointed on promotion to the post of CDPO was ;
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KABERI 235
.... KHASTAGIR & ORS. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

published on 23.2.2004, which did not conform to the procedure A
-4
as indicated hereinabove, with the result that a large number
of under-graduate male employees from different zones of the
cadre were promoted to the post of CDPO and ACDPO.
Despite several representations made to the State Government
and the Director of Women and Child Development and Social B
Welfare of the State Government, no steps were taken to
alleviate the grievances of the writ petitioners and, on the other
.)._
'\ hand, a second list was published which was prepared on the
same basis as the earlier list.

7. Aggrieved by the said action on the part of the State
c
..,., Government and its authorities, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3
herein filed a writ petition, inter alia, for the following reliefs:
(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondent authority to fill up 75% D
post of CDPO and ACDPO by way of promotion
_.... from the female Supervisors working under the
ICDS Project as per provisions laid down under the
said Scheme;
E
(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing
the respondents authority to cancel, set aside and/
or rescind the promotion of the candidates from the
outside cadre of Supervisors under the ICDS

(c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus F
> .,, commanding the respondents authority to set aside,
cancel and/or rescind the promotion of the
candidates having not fulfilled the requisite
qualification of graduate in Social Science to the
post of CDPO and also ACDPO." G

""'
..-; 8. The said writ application came up for hearing before the
learned Single Judge who, on an analysis of the Scheme, came
to hold that although the State was acting as a nodal agency,
the employees under the Scheme were not Government
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R.
e
"""
A employees but Project employees and that if and when the
)--
Project was withdrawn, their employment would also cease.
The learned Judge also held that the State Government had all
throughout acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of the
Scheme. However, without disturbing the status existing when
B the order was made by the learned Single Judge, directions
were given to the State Government to adhere to the Scheme
while giving appointments thereunder. The learned Judge also
directed that only 25% of the vacancies fof the posts of CDPO -1
could be filled up by direct recruitment and the rest by promotion,
c as prescribed under the Scheme, subject to the candidates
having requisite qualifications. It was also directed that the State
Government should ensure that the posts should be filled up by . ..
lady officers as far as practicable and in case a male officer
was appointed, the State Government would be required to
pass a reasoned order to be kept in the record to the effect
D
that there was no suitable lady candidate available for the post.

9. The writ ~pplication was disposed of with the aforesaid \-
'· I. i
observations and aggrieved thereby the State Gove,rnment
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, being'F.M.A. \'
E No.796/07, which was dismissed with the learned Judges
endorsing the views expressed by the learned Single 'Judge
. and holding that the issues raised in the writ petition had been
correctly decided and that no interference was called for with
the same. While passing the: said order, the Division Bench
F came to a definite finding that the writ petitioners were all
employed in the ICDS ProjeCt and could not, therefore, be ;,.
...
treated as State Governmen~ employees. On the aforesaid
finding the Writ Appeal was also d~smissed against which the
present appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal.
G
10. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted by Mr. K.K.
Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate, that the ICDS Scheme
,..,,... t-
was a Central Government Sc~eme which was promulgated on
2nd October, 1975, through the Department of Human
Resource Development with the object of integrated delivery
1::1
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KABERI 237
> KHASTAGIR & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

of certain services such as supplementary nutrition, A
·~
immunization, health check-up, referral service, non-formal
education and health & nutrition education to pre-school
children and pregnant and nursing women. In addition to
improvement in the health and nutritional status of the children,
the scheme aimed at reduction of the incidence of school B
dropouts and laying the foundation for proper psychological,
physical and social development of the child. Mr. Venugopal
._c
submitted that the Scheme admittedly contemplated the
"'·
implementation thereof by the State Government within their
respective States. In that regard the Central Government issued c
-· guidelines from time to time and the number of ICDS projects
which still required to be allotted by the Central Government.

For implementation of the Scheme, the Government of
India at each project level, sanctioned posts of Child
Development Project Officer, Assistant Child Development D
Project Officer, Supervisors and other infrastructural posts. The
Scheme categorically laid down that all the personnel under the
Scheme, were to be borne on the respective cadres of the
State GovernmenUUnion Territory Administration and the said
posts should, therefore, be sanctioned in the appropriate pay E
scales of the State Government/ Union Territory Administration.

11. The Scheme also provided that the CDPOs and
Supervisors should preferably be females. Mr.Venugopal also
pointed out that although the Scheme was Centrally-sponsored F
I'
and the major funding was done by the Central Government,
the State Government also contributes about 40% of the costs
of the projects within the State.

12. According to Mr.Venugopal, from time to time various
projects under the Scheme were allotted to the State of West G
Bengal and on such allotment of each project the State of West
""'\ Bengal issued orders for the manning of each project according

... to the staff pattern laid down in the Scheme and granting them
scales of pay of each cadre.
H
e
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R.
·~

A 13. Mr. Venugopal submitted that on 3.6.1983, in
supersession of all earlier notifications in this regard the State
• • I • •

of West Bengal issued a fresh Notification constituting the West
Bengal Junior Social Welfare Services (hereinafter referred to
as 'WBJSWS') in which the post of CDPO in the ICDS Project
B stood included. Consequently,, the post of CDPO in the ICDS
. project became part of the regularly constituted State .Service.

14. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the contesting, 1
respondent No.1, Smt. Kaberi Khastagir, was appointed by the
c State of West Bengal in the Qepartment of Social Welfare as
Supervisor of the ICDS Project at Jagat Ballavpur in the District
·~
of Howrah in West Bengal, on ,a pay scale of Rs.380-910/- plus
usual allowances as-admissible under the Government Orders
from time to time. The other conditions of service were made
the same as those applicable ,to other Government employees
D of the same category under the Rules and Orders of the State
Government. Similarly, other Gontesting respondents were also
¥
appointed in the same fashion.

15. Mr. Venugopal then submitted that on 11.10.1985 in
E exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Section 309
of the Constitution and in supersession of earlier Notifications
the State Government notified Recruitment Rules for the posts
included in the WBJSWS, which provided for filling up of posts
in the said service by direct r~cruitment through the State P~blic
F Service Commission for 60% of the posts and the rest 40% ...
were to be filled up by promotion from the feeder cadres. This >(.

apparently led to an anomaly as the direct recruit quota of posts
in the WBJSWS was reduced to 50% from 60% and the
promotee quota was increased from 40 to 50%. On 16.10.1989
in supersession of all earlier Notifica_tions covering the field the
G
State Government issued a fresh Notification framing

H
Recruitment Rules for the' posts of Supervisors of ICDS in
exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. By
these Recruitment Rules the method of recruitment was to be
direct recruitment by selection from candidates sponsored by
r

..
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KABERI 239
KHASTAGIR & ORS. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Employment Exchanges and from Aanganwadi workers of A
ICDS on the basis of the result of a written-cum-oral test to be
conducted by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Government
of West Bengal.

16. Mr. Venugopal urged that it was, therefore, quite clear
B
that the State Government had always treated the posts of
CDPF and Supervisor in the ICDS as posts under the State
Government and granted Government scales of pay and all
{' other service conditions, including pension benefits, as per the
Rules of the State Government. In fact, all other categories of
staff working in the ICDS Project were also granted Government
c
scales of pay and all Government benefits, including pension
benefits, treating all categories of staff of ICDS as Government
employees. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the introduction of the
new Recruitment Rules led to the filing of the Writ Petition
No.11539(W) of 2004 in the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, for D
the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to command
the respondent authorities to fill up 75% of the posts of CDPO
---! and ACDPOs by way of promotion from the female Supervisors
working in ICDS Projects. The grievance highlighted in the Writ
Petition was that while the Scheme had provided for filling up E
of 75% of the posts of CDPO and ACDPO by promotion of
female Supervisors and the remaining 25% by direct
recruitment, the authorities were not filling up the same and
were depriving the female ·Supervisors of promotion to the
posts of CDPO and ACDPO. According to Mr. Venugopal, the F
stand of the Government of India was very definite in that the
>
Supervisors and CDPOs of the Scheme were employees of
the State Government and the terms and conditions of their
efTlployment, such as promotion and other service benefits
were to be determined as per the Rules framed by the State G
Government. Mr. Venugopal submitted that as far as the State
Government was concerned, promotion to the posts of CDPO
'"'>
and ACDPO were made following the Recruitment Rules

- framed by the State Government and hence there was no
question of any violation of any mandatory direction under the H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
'
A ICDS Project. It was also the st~nd of the State Goyernment
that the writ petitioners were Government employees and were )..-
not, therefore, entitled to file a ~rit petition in the High Court
regarding their service conditions and that they should have
instead approached the State' Administrative Tribunal for
B necessary relief.
17. Mr. Venugopal urged that the approach of the High
Court was completely wrong since the Scheme itself stipulated
that though the same was a Centrally Sponsored Scheme its
implementation was left entirely to the State Governments which
c were funded by the Central Government to the extent of about
50% of the actual expenditure. Mr. Venugopal also emphasised ..,._
that a specific provision had been made in the Scheme for its
implementation and that in parawaph 47 of the Scheme it has
been indicated as follows:
D
"Even though funds will be provided by the Central
Government, the Staff will be borne on the appropriate
:i.~
cadres of the States anq therefore, the State should
sanction the posts (as per Appendix) in the appropriate
E corresponding State pay scale. The anganwadi workers
and their helpers will be hQnorary workers."

18. Mr. Venugopal urged that the finding of the learned
Single Judge, that the private respondents herein were not
State Government staff but Project workers in connection with
F the Scheme, was in complete ,variance with paragraph 47 of
.....
the Scheme and apparently even the Division Bench in appeal·
I ¥-.
,.:.
had not considered the said provision properly. Mr. Venugopal,
however, urged that if the status of Project workers given to the
respondents by the High Court, was to be accepted, it would
G amount to accepting the fact that the respondents were left with
no job security and that with the completion of the Project, their
services would stand the danger of being terminated without
any retiral benefits. Mr. Venugopal submitted that it was in the
r,...
..
interest of the private respondents that the orders passed by ~
H the learned, Single Judge and the Division Bench holding them
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KABERI 241
KHASTAGIR & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
to be Project workers be set aside. A

19. Mr. Apurba Lal Basu, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 ,·who were similarly
·placed as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, adopted the submissions
made by Mr. Venugopal but also relied on the affidavit filed by B
the respondent No. 7 on his own behalf and on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 8 to 10 wherein it was also indicated that the
fact that the staff of the ICDS Project were State Government
t- employees, would be evident from the facts that their services
are interchangeable in different projects of the State
Government according to the needs and exigencies of the
c

- concerned Departments of the State Government. Taking the
case of the respondent No.1 as an example, Mr. Basu
submitted that she had been appointed on 22.3.1984 by the
State Government in the Department of Social Welfare as
Supervisor of the ICDS Project at Jagat Ballavpur in the District D
of Howrah in West B~ngal in the pay-scale of Rs.380-910/-
--.J
whlch is scale No.9 of the Revision of Pay and Allowances
Rules, 1991, together with usual allowances as admissible
under Government orders from time to time. He urged that the
other conditions of service of the respondent No.1 were the E
same as those applicable to other Government employees of
the same category under the Rules and orders of the State
Government.

---. 20. Mr. Basu submitted that both the learned Single Judge F
-; _; and the Division Bench of the High Court misconstrued the
provisions of the Scheme and in particular the provisions
contained in paragraph 47 thereof.

21. Ms. Amreshwari, learned Senior Advocate, who
appeared for the Central Government also adopted the G
submissions made by Shri Venugopal and Mr.Basu, and
submitted that in terms of the ICDS Scheme, the employees

..
----"'\
thereof were to be borne on the State cadre and were subject
to service conditions of similarly placed State Government
employees. H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]' 17 S.C.R.
e·
,,,
A 22. Mr. Saharangshu Bhattacharya, learned advocate, who
appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that under
the ICDS Project the financial responsibility for the
implementation of the Scheme has been mentioned in
paragraph 35 of the Scheme which, inter alia, provides that the
B said s.cheme had been classified as a Centrally- sponsored
programme to be implemented through the State Government
with full financial assistance from the Central Government for
)nputs, other than supplementary nutrition, which would have to
.belooked after by the State Government. The Scheme also 1
c contemplates active involvement of voluntary organizations,
local bodies, Panchayati Raj Institutions, in implementing and
soliciting community support.i The object of the Scheme was
to entrust the running of Angariwadis to voluntary organizations,
local bodies and Panchayati Raj Institutions and provide them
with grant-in-aid on the basis of the support required for the
D
Anganwadis. It was also indicated that the State Government
could thus run an Anganwadi only if no organization. as
suggested was available.

23. Mr. Bhattacharya reiterated the submissions made
E before the High Court that the State Government was
functioning only as a nodal a,gency a~d that the writ petitioners
were all Project employees and could not be regarded as State
Government employees. Mr. Bhattacharya urged that both the
learned Single Judge and th~ Division Bench of the High Court
F had rightly came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners before ,
the High Court were all employed in the ICDS Project and their -\.
,.:.
promotion from the post of Supervisor to the post of CDPO
would have to be governed under the provisions of the Scheme
itself and the State Government could not regulate such
G appointment and/or promotion in any manner other than what
had been set out in the Scheme.

24. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that in the Writ Petition .,,,_,,...
filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein two-fold prayers had

H
been made - (i) for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to ....
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & .ORS. v. KABERI 243
KHASTAGIR & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

command the respondents to fill up 75% of the posts of CDPO A
and ACDPO by way of promotion from the female Supervisors
working under the Project as per the provisions of the Scheme
and (ii) a further writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to cancel and set aside the promotion of the
candidates to the post of CDPO outside the cadre of B
Supervisor under the ICDS Scheme and in addition to cancel
and/or rescind the promotion of the candidates who had not
fulfilled the requisite qualification of being a graduate in Social
Science. In support of his submission Mr. Bhattacharya referred
to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh c
and others [(1992) 4 sec 118], wherein while considering the
case of ad hoc temporary employees in temporary
organizations like the Adult Education Scheme and the
Integrated Child Development Scheme, it was held that a person
who had continued in service for more than one year without
0
notional breaks, would be entitled to the benefits of service and
the benefits of directions issued by this Court in the case of
Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana {(1987) 4 SCC 34), and
none of the services of such ad hoc temporary employees
would be terminated except on abandonment of the Scheme.
E
25. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that both the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench had rightly come to the
conclusion that the writ petitioners were Project employees and
not employees of the State Government and they were not,
therefore, amenable to the conditions of service of State F
Government employees.

26. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
of the respective parties, we find ourselves unable to agree with
the reasoning either of the learned Single Judge or the Division G ,
Bench of the High Court in holding that the writ petitioners were
Project employees in respect of the ICDS Project and not
employees of the State Government and that their services
were co-terminus with the Project. Paragraph 35 of the Scheme
clearly provides that though the same was a Centrally- H
I
---{
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

A sponsored scheme, its implementation was left to the
respective State Governments with 100% financial assistance
from. the Central Government for inputs other than
supplementary nutrition which was identified as the
responsibility of the State Government. In fact, paragraph·47
B of the Scheme, which has been extracted hereinabove, in no
uncertain terms makes it very clear that even though funds for
the Scheme would be provided by the Central Government, the
staff would be borne on the appropriate cadres of the States
which would sanction the posts in the appropriate
c .
corresponding State pay scale. In the face of such provision it
is· difficult to accept that the writ petitioners were Project
workers and not employees of th~ State Government.

27. From the various Anne~ures set out in the Special
Leave Petition and referred to by Mr. Venugopal it will be
D apparent that persons appointed as Child Development Project
Officers of the Integrated Child Development Scheme Project
were employees of the State Government as contemplated
under Paragraph 47 of the Scheme. The notification dated 3rd
June, 1983, issued by the Relief and Welfare Department,
E Department of Government of West Bengal provides for the
constitution of the West Bengal, Junior Social Welfare Service
which includes Child Development Project Officers of the ICDS
Project. From the orders of appointment issued by the Director
of Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal on 22nd March,
F 1984, 29th March, 1984 and 31st March, 1984 in favour of
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it will be apparent that the service
conditions of the said responden~s were also to be that as were
applicable to other government servants of the same category
under the Rules and Orders of the Government.
G
28. Even the Rules made on 11th October, 1985 in
supersession of the earlier Rules framed by the Department of
Relief and Welfare, Government of West Bengal, dated 23rd
March, 1981, which deals with the method of and the
H qualifications required, for recruitment to posts included .in the .
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS, v. KABERI 245
KHASTAGIR & ORS. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

West Bengal Junior Social Welfare Services under the Welfare A
~
Branch of the Relief and Welfare Department of the State
...,_ Government provides that the Appointing Authority would be the
Governor of West Bengal and that the method of recruitment
would be by selection on the results of the West Bengal Civil
Services (Executive) Examination or by promotion on the basis B
of a preliminary written test to be co~ducted by the Public
Service Commission, West Bengal, for screening of
candidates, followed by interview of the successful candidates
by the said Commission. Since the ICDS Project was included
under the W.B.J.S.W.S., the said Rules of 1985 would no doubt c
be applicable to the Officers of the said Scheme as well. .

29. Subsequently, on 16th December, 1989 further Rules
were made in the Relief and Welfare Department (Welfare
Branch) of the Government of West Bengal relating to
recruitment of Supervisors in the ICDS Project which again D
provides that the Appointing Authority would be the Directorate
:j
of Social· Welfare, West Bengal. A similar notification dated
23rd December, 2002, was issued by the Department of
Women and Child Development and Social Welfare,
Government of West Bengal, regarding the post of ACDPO E
where again the Appointing Authority is the Director of Social
Welfare, West Bengal.

30. All the aforesaid Rules promulgated by the Stat~
·Government under Paragraph 47 of the Integrated Child F
Development Scheme leaves little room for doubt that the
>
T .... respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and others similarly situated, were,
in fact, State Government employees. The learned Single
. Judge, as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, appear
to have been swayed by the submissions made on behalf of
G
the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (writ petitioners before the High
Court) that the State of West Bengal is merely a nodal agency
... '\ to supervise the implementation of the Scheme which was in
the nature of a Project and that the employees thereunder were,
therefore, Project employees, overlooking the overall intention
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R. e
A and object of the Scheme that in ,order to p,rovide child care
and nutrition for children and lactating mothers, the Central y-
Government was willing to fund the entire project but left the
implementation thereof to the State Governments who were -!

authorized under the Scheme to appoint the staff of the Project,
B who were to be borne on the apprbpriate cadres of the States.
Paragraph 35 of the Scheme, which deals with the functional
responsibilities, makes this position very clear.

31. Having regard to the above, we are -unable to .accept :J
the reasoning both of the Learned Single Judge and the Division
c Bench of the High Court. We accordingly all~w the Appeal ancl
dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and
3.

32. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
D
D.G. Appeal allowed.

\.-~