Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 154 (MEG)

Smira Lawai v. State of Meghalaya

2014-06-18

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Pyngrope, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for respondents No. 1 - 3 and Ms. A. Thangkhiew, learned GA appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. On perusal of the writ petition as well as the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it appears that there are claims and counter claims between the petitioner No. 1 and 2 on one side and respondent No. 4 on the other side regarding the proper functioning of the Anganwadi at Madanlangning Centre, Mawryngkneng Block. It appears from the record that respondent No. 3 i.e. the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project Mawryngkneng, East Khasi Hills and its supervisor had visited the Anganwadi Centre at Madanlangning where the petitioners are working as the Anganwadi workers. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 had been attended 3 (three) months training course for Anganwadi workers conducted by the I.C.D.S. Project, Bhoi Area, Umsning w.e.f. 02.01.1988 to 31.03.1988. After completing the training course, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Anganwadi worker at Madanlangning Centre and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as helper to assist the petitioner No. 1 since 1988. The main duties of the petitioners are to distribute the mid-day meals to the school children of Madanlangning. 3. While the petitioners were working in the said Anganwadi Centre, there was land dispute amongst the clan members of Madanlangning Village. The petitioner No. 1 is one of the signatories in the complaint filed against respondent No. 4 regarding the said land dispute. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that because of that complaint, the respondent No. 4 had taken up steps for removing the petitioners from working as Anganwadi workers. Because of the said land dispute between the clan members and also the complaint against the respondent No. 4, the said Anganwadi Centre was also temporarily closed down till the settlement of the dispute in respect of the Anganwadi Centre vide letter dated 28.01.2013 of the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Mawryngkneng, East Khasi Hills (respondent No. 3). 4. The respondent No. 1-3 filed their affidavit-in-opposition and in their in affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that there was an inquiry regarding the complaint made by the respondent No. 4, Sordar and Secretary of Madanlangning against the present petitioners. 4. The respondent No. 1-3 filed their affidavit-in-opposition and in their in affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that there was an inquiry regarding the complaint made by the respondent No. 4, Sordar and Secretary of Madanlangning against the present petitioners. From the enquiry, it had been found out that there was a dispute between the villagers and the villagers had been divided into 2 (two) groups. The petitioner No. 1, i.e. the Anganwadi worker used to distribute the Supplementary Nutrition food to the children, adolescent girls, pregnant and nursing mothers of the group belonging to the petitioners. The inquiry report (English Version) submitted by the Lady Supervisor, ICDS Project Mawryngkneng to the CDPO, Mawryngkneng (Annexure-II to the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent) reads as follows:- From: Smti. B. Khongjoh, L/S ICDS Project, Mawryngkneng. To: Smti. M. Kharkongor, CDPO ICDS Project Mawryngkneng. Sub: Inquiry of Madanlanging AWC. Madam, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that I Smti. B. Khongjoh L/S Incharge of Madanlanging AWC have made an inquiry base on the complain received from the Sordar and Secretary of Madanlanging at the Office Headquarter. On inquiring the said complaint made by the Sordar and the Secretary of Madanlanging I found out that the Village was divided into two groups. The Anganwadi worker use to distribute the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) to all the children, Adolescent girls, pregnant and Nursing mothers in the locality seems to be one sided, which means to those party of the Anganwadi and Helper. Moreover the other groups of the same locality who are against the Anganwadi worker and Helper never participate in the SNP or other programme conducted by the Anganwadi Worker and Helper and they also refused to send their children to the AWC. Further the VLCC which was contributed in the village was done by AWW alone with few member of her own wish which instead the Chairman of the VLCC should be the Village Headman or the Sordar and the AWW should be the Secretary or the Asst. Secretary. Even before there was a dispute between the AWW Helper with the Sordar and Secretary of the village but intimation was made to the office. Only and till the news spread to the office that the Lady Supervisor has to intervene the matter. Secretary. Even before there was a dispute between the AWW Helper with the Sordar and Secretary of the village but intimation was made to the office. Only and till the news spread to the office that the Lady Supervisor has to intervene the matter. But still the matter was not solved but later both the party have agreed to hold the Public Meeting and the CDPO along with the Supervisor concerned to be present on the day of the meeting. This is for information and necessary action. Sd/- B. Khongjoh 5. On perusal of the said enquiry report, it is clear that there were disputes between the parties i.e. between the petitioner No. 1 and some villagers on one side and respondent No. 4 and others on the other side. In the month of November, 2012, the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS, Project Mawryngkneng, East Khasi Hills respondent No. 3 made an enquiry and submitted a report that "today the Undersigned along with Supervisor incharge have visited Madanlanging AWC to find out the reality and functioning of AWC. As reported by the Lady Supervisor, Smti. B. Khongjoh and after enquiry, found that the AWC Madanlanging was divided into two groups, although the majority of the village supported the Sordars and the Secretary. Only few houses one with the AWW and helper. When we made home visit we found out that one part of the AWW told us they received the foodstuff (SNP) etc. But when I visited the other, nobody knows how the centre is functioning because they do not take part nor sent their children to attend the AWC, and it seem also that the AWW conducted the centre in her own free will and choose her own people. The reason behind is their land dispute etc and both AWW and helper went to join the site who are against the Sordars. For this reason the villagers are not at all happy and so they never attend anything/Programme conducted by AWW and so the AWW lost the support of the majority of village people. The centre was not all maintain on the day of the visit, duty and cooking materials were not clean, and as there was no coordination the AWW choose her own people and conducted the programme as she like. The centre was not all maintain on the day of the visit, duty and cooking materials were not clean, and as there was no coordination the AWW choose her own people and conducted the programme as she like. So after the visit the undersigned fell that a public meeting should be conducted to solve the problem. As discussed with all staff and supervisor a public meeting is arranged on the 13/12/2012 at Madanlangning (school playground) after both the parties have agreed for the meeting". 6. As per the said report, a public meeting of the villagers of Madanlangning Village had been arranged on 13.12.2012 at Madanlangning (school playground) after both the parties had agreed for the meeting. In that meeting held on 13.12.2012, the petitioner No. 1 and others had participated but the petitioner No. 1 refused to apologize. It is the submission of Mr. R Pyngrope, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 did not apologize because the petitioner No. 1 did not commit any mistake. It is also alleged that for the interest of the villagers and also for the interest of the department, the meeting had decided to replace the petitioners by appointing fresh Anganwadi workers. The proceeding of the said meeting i.e. held on 13.12.2012 had been intimated to the District Programme Officer, ICDS Cell, East Khasi Hills, Shillong under the letter of the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project Mawryngkneng, East Khasi Hills (respondent No. 3) under her letter dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure-VI to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 1-3) reads as follows:- GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER ICDS PROJECT MAWRYNGKNENG No. ICDS/MPK/COM(AWWs & AWHs)/295/12-13/545 Dated Mawryngkneng the 19/12/12 From: The Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project Mawryngkneng East Khasi Hills. To, The District Programme Officer ICDS Cell, East Khasi Hills Shillong. Sub: Public meeting conducted at Madanlanging AWC regarding complaints against the AWW. Madam, With reference to the above and based on the complaint by the Sordar of Madanlanging AWC vide letter No. Nil dated 15th October 2012 to the office of the undersigned, a public meeting was arrange at school playground at Madanlanging on the 13th December 2012. During the meeting the undersigned along with the office staff observed that the Sordar and the public charged the Anganwadi for non-co-operation with the village Durbar. During the meeting the undersigned along with the office staff observed that the Sordar and the public charged the Anganwadi for non-co-operation with the village Durbar. Moreover, the Anganwadi selected her own people to be members of the VLCC without the consent of the Sordar and the Secretary of the village and no information was given to the office of the undersigned and the supervisor incharge which is against the rule of ICDS Scheme. The undersigned along with office staff tried their level best to convince the AWW and at the same time to admit the charges and to apologize. But the Anganwadi was neither ready to admit the charge nor want to apologize. Due to the adamant attitude of the Anganwadi, the villagers strongly objected her to continue as Anganwadi and requested the undersigned to immediately replace her. Therefore to avoid further dispute and in the interest of the Department, the undersigned along with the Lady Supervisor decided to replace the said Anganwadi and fresh application is awaited from the villagers. Further development on the above matter will he intimated to you accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Smti. M. Kharkongor) Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project Mawryngkneng East Khasi Hills. 7. From the above facts, it is clear that there are claims and counter claims between the parties. This disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court in the writ petition. This Court is of the considered view that the appropriate authority to decide the matter in dispute between the parties regarding the appointment of fresh Anganwadi workers for the said Anganwadi Centre would be the Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to approach the Commissioner/& Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Meghalaya by filing a representation mentioning the details of their case and supported by documents against the impugned order dated 19.12.2012 which had been quoted above in extenso within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today and the Commissioner/& Secretary on receipt of the representation filed by the petitioners shall disposed of the same within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation by passing a reasoned order. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.