Intervention of DGP sought
Ashikho Pfuzhe
Dimapur | September 14
Nineteen trainees of the State’s first Mahila Battalion, 15 NAP (IR), are crying foul over the manner in which they were allegedly “force-discharged” and “unceremoniously” bundled out of the training camp on Teachers’ Day. Huddled in rooms of a hotel in Dimapur, the trainees said they have been staying in the hotel since September 5 and footing their own bills from the one-month salary they received before their discharge.
According to the trainees, on September 1 last, twenty of the trainees who tested positive in the first pregnancy test were handed a “ready-made copy” of a letter, which each trainee was asked to copy in their own handwriting and later made to sign the petition. “The petition simply stated that the trainees cannot continue with basic training due to physical problems and there is no mention of pregnancy in it,” one of the girls said. The trainees alleged that they “were unjustly forced, threatened and coerced to accept the discharge letter” or “face the consequences.” One of the trainees reportedly left the camp without even taking the discharge order.
Alleging “manipulation” and injustice, the nineteen trainees in a joint representation to the Nagaland DGP, requested the police chief to “deliver justice without showing any biasness or discriminatory stance.” Citing a case of injustice, the trainees alleged that one trainee (a havildar) who also tested positive in the pregnancy test was spared while others were given the marching orders. The 15 NAP (IR) authorities reportedly informed that the former case was “different” and that a “separate order” would come from the PHQ.
The representation also stated that whereas the discharge order was dated September 4, 2009, the date appended with the signature of the commandant, 15 NAP (IR), on the discharge order was September 1, 2009. “It can be inferred from the above that the signature of the commandant was obtained on a blank paper on which he signed (i.e. on 01.09.09) prior to the drafting/typing of the discharge letter/order’s which is dated 04.09.09,” the representation stated.
On the urine tests for pregnancy, the trainees said that in the first test carried out between July 31and August 3, twenty trainees were declared positive. In the second test carried out on August 29 to “confirm the first test”, only nine of the twenty trainees were declared positive. “The urine tests and the results thereof as mentioned is not consistent and therefore not totally reliable,” the representation stated.
The report of the regimental medical officer, 15 NAP (IR), dated September 2, 2009, also confirmed that in the “re-test,” only nine recruits were “verified positive pregnancy.” The representation also stated that there was no “pregnancy clause in the recruitment form” although the trainees had to sign an undertaking during training to the effect that they shall “not become pregnant and shall remain physically and mentally fit during the course of the training, which we all do at present.”
The trainees further claimed that thirty nine of their present instructors who joined the state police force last year were given the option to “take the baby or service” at the time of training. The “discharged” trainees had undergone training for one month starting July 31 last.
