IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.      OF 2008

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16547 OF 2007

State of West Bengal & ors. ...Appellants

Vs.

Kaberi Khastagir & Ors.    ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein claim to

have been 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

1

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

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  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 Scheme within the

territories of West Bengal.

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

2

of the Central 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 promotion to the post of

Assistant  Child  Development  Officer

(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 it was mandatory on the part of

the State Government to fill up the post of

Supervisors from female candidates only and

that  the  same  was  also  reflected  in  the

Scheme where a specific 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

3

motto of the said Scheme was to promote the

welfare of women and children.

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

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, 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

4

Commission  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

authorities  in  their  capacity  as  the

Implementing  Agency.  However,  all  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  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 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

5

prepared on the same basis as the earlier

list.  

7. Aggrieved by the said action on the part of

the State 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% 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;

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  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.”

6

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  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

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 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

7

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 that there was no suitable

lady candidate available for the post.

9.  The writ application was disposed of with

the  aforesaid  observations  and  aggrieved

thereby the State Government preferred an

appeal  before  the  Division  Bench,  being

F.M.A. 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 came to a definite finding

that the writ petitioners were all employed

8

in  the  ICDS  Project  and  could  not,

therefore, be treated as State Government

employees.  On  the  aforesaid  finding  the

Writ  Appeal  was  also  dismissed  against

which the present appeal has been filed by

the State of West Bengal.

10. On  behalf  of  the  appellants  it  was

submitted  by  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned

Senior Advocate, that the ICDS Scheme was a

Central  Government  Scheme  which  was

promulgated  on  2nd October,  1975,  through

the  Department  of  Human  Resource

Development with the object of integrated

delivery  of  certain  services  such  as

supplementary  nutrition,  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

9

dropouts  and  laying  the  foundation  for

proper  psychological, physical and social

development  of  the  child.  Mr.Venugopal

submitted  that  the  Scheme  admittedly

contemplated the implementation thereof by

the  State  Government  within  their

respective  States.  In  that  regard  the

Central  Government  issued  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  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

Government/Union Territory Administration and the

said posts should, therefore, be sanctioned in the

10

appropriate pay 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

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 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.

13. Mr.Venugopal submitted that on 3.6.1983, in

supersession  of  all  earlier  notifications

in  this  regard  the  State  of  West  Bengal

11

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 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

respondent No.1, Smt. Kaberi Khastagir, was

appointed by the State of West Bengal in

the  Department  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 of the same category

under  the  Rules  and  Orders  of  the  State

Government.  Similarly,  other  contesting

12

respondents were also appointed in the same

fashion.

15. Mr.  Venugopal  then  submitted  that  on

11.10.1985  in  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 recruitment through the State Public

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

Notifications covering the field the State

Government  issued  a  fresh  Notification

framing Recruitment Rules for the posts of

13

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

Employment  Exchanges  and  from  Aanganwadi

workers of 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 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 scales of pay and all Government

benefits,  including  pension  benefits,

14

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  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 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 stand of the Government of

India  was  very  definite  in  that  the

15

Supervisors  and  CDPOs  of  the  Scheme  were

employees of the State Government and the

terms and conditions of their employment,

such  as  promotion  and  other  service

benefits were to be determined as per the

Rules framed by the State 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  ICDS  Project.  It  was

also the stand of the State Government that

the  writ  petitioners  were  Government

employees and were not, therefore, entitled

to file a writ petition in the High Court

regarding their service conditions and that

they  should  have  instead  approached  the

State Administrative Tribunal for necessary

relief.

16

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 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 paragraph 47

of  the  Scheme  it  has  been  indicated  as

follows:

“Even though funds will be provided by the Central Government, the Staff will be  borne  on  the  appropriate  cadres  of the  States  and  therefore,  the  State should  sanction  the  posts  (as  per Appendix)  in  the  appropriate corresponding  State  pay  scale.  The anganwadi workers and their helpers will be honorary workers.”

18. Mr. Venugopal urged that the finding of the

learned  Single  Judge,  that  the  private

respondents  herein  were  not  State

17

Government  staff  but  Project  workers  in

connection with the Scheme, was in complete

variance  with  paragraph  47  of  the  Scheme

and apparently even the Division Bench in

appeal  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  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

interest  of  the  private  respondents  that

the  orders  passed  by  the  learned  Single

Judge and the Division Bench holding them

to be Project workers be set aside.

19. Mr.  Apurba  Lal  Basu,  learned  Senior

Advocate,   appearing  for  the  respondent

Nos. 6 to 9 , who were similarly placed as

18

the  respondent  Nos.  1  to  3,  adopted  the

submissions made by Mr. Venugopal but also

relied  on  the  affidavit  filed  by  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  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  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  of

Howrah in West Bengal in the pay-scale of

Rs.380-910/-  which  is  scale  No.9  of  the

Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1991,

19

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 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 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 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.

20

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 said

Scheme had been classified as a Centrally-

sponsored  programme  to  be  implemented

through  the  State  Government  with  full

financial  assistance  from  the  Central

Government  for  inputs,  other  than

supplementary  nutrition,  which  would  have

to be looked after by the State Government.

The  Scheme  also  contemplates  active

involvement  of  voluntary  organizations,

local bodies, Panchayati Raj Institutions,

in  implementing  and  soliciting  community

support. The object of the Scheme was to

entrust  the  running  of  Anganwadis  to

voluntary  organizations,  local  bodies  and

Panchayati  Raj  Institutions  and  provide

21

them with grant-in-aid on the basis of the

support required for the 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 before the High Court that

the State Government was functioning only

as  a  nodal  agency  and  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 the Division

Bench of the High Court 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

appointment and/or promotion in any manner

22

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 been made –

(i) for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to

command the respondents to fill up 75% of

the  posts  of  CDPO  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 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

23

vs. Piara Singh and others [(1992) 4 SCC

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 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.

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

24

conditions of service of State 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  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-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 of the Scheme, which has been

extracted  hereinabove,  in  no  uncertain

25

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  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 the State Government.

27. From the various Annexures set out in the

Special Leave Petition and referred to by

Mr.  Venugopal  it  will  be  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,

Department  of  Government  of  West  Bengal

provides for the constitution of the West

26

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, 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 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.   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 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

27

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 of a preliminary written test to

be  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 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  provides  that  the

Appointing  Authority  would  be  the

28

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 Welfare,

Government  of  West  Bengal,  regarding  the

post  of  ACDPO  where  again  the  Appointing

Authority  is  the  Director  of  Social

Welfare, West Bengal.

30. All the aforesaid Rules promulgated by the

State Government under Paragraph 47 of the

Integrated Child Development Scheme leaves

little room for doubt that the 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  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

29

the  Scheme  which was in the  nature  of  a

Project and that the employees thereunder

were,  therefore,  Project  employees,

overlooking  the  overall  intention  and

object  of  the  Scheme  that  in  order  to

provide  child  care  and  nutrition  for

children and lactating mothers, the Central

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, who were to be borne

on  the  appropriate  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 the reasoning both of the Learned

Single Judge and the Division Bench of the

High  Court.   We  accordingly  allow  the

Appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition filed

by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.   

30

32. There  will,  however,  be  no  order  as  to

costs.   

________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

   ________________J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi Dated: December 10,2008

31