Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 810 (KER)

K. M. Chacko v. The Chairman

2005-12-22

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.SIRI JAGAN

body2005
Judgment :- Siri Jagan, J. Three persons, stated to be public spirited, have filed this public interest writ petition imploring this court to frame proper guidelines in the mater of recommending teachers for grant of national awards for teachers and the procedure for making recommendations for such grant, citing the example of one Smt. B. Lalithakumari, who, according to the petitioners, was an eminently deserving person to be recommended for such award and has been ignored. 2. The case of the petitioners is that as per the practice now prevailing, the recommendations are made only from among the names suggested by the District Educational Officer (DEO) of each district. If, a particular teacher, even if eminently deserving, either does not gain the attention of the DEO or the DEO does not want to recommend such eminently deserving person for reasons other than merit, there is no other way of such qualified persons being considered by the authorities, who ultimately recommend names for grant of national awards for teachers. The existing norms, according to them, are sadly lacking in clarity and direction in this regard and as such, this Court has to frame appropriate guidelines for making recommendations for grant of national awards for teachers to obviate such unfortunate omission of a deserving candidate. As an example they would project the case of Smt. Lalithakumari extolling her merits and achievements and the fact that she was in fact granted State Award for best teachers in the year 2000. According to the petitioners, it would be unsafe to leave the choice of names for consideration of high level committees for recommending teachers for grant of national awards on the DEO alone without any provision thereof for forwarding of names from other sources to the high level committees, in addition to the names suggested by the DEO. Although, originally, the petitioners sought to espouse the cause of the said Smt. Lalithakumari, ultimately they have amended the writ petition with appropriate prayers for direction to the government to frame proper guidelines and implement the same to regular the exercise of discretion by the officers who suggest names and ensure that deserving candidates are not omitted from consideration. Although, originally, the petitioners sought to espouse the cause of the said Smt. Lalithakumari, ultimately they have amended the writ petition with appropriate prayers for direction to the government to frame proper guidelines and implement the same to regular the exercise of discretion by the officers who suggest names and ensure that deserving candidates are not omitted from consideration. The third respondent – Director of Public Instruction has filed a counter affidavit as also an affidavit dated 2.11.2005 explaining the procedure adopted by the Government in the matter of selection of teachers for recommending for national awards and defending such procedure as sufficient and adequate as containing all possible safeguards. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The national awards for teachers were first instituted in the year 1958-59. In 1967-68 the scope of the same was enlarge and in 1976 the scope of the scheme was still further enlarged including several categories of teachers hitherto ignored. In 1993, Sainik Schools, Navodaya vidyalayas and schools run by Atomic energy Education society and CBSE were also brought within the purview of the scheme. In the above circumstances, the Central government has formulated Ext.P1 scheme, formulating guidelines for selecting teachers for national awards fixing the conditions of eligibility, procedure for selection etc. The conditions for eligibility of the teachers contained in Ext.P1 are as follows:- “1. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY OF TEACHERS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE AWARDS: 1. Classroom teachers with atleast 15 years regular teaching experience and Headmaster with 20 years of regular teaching experience and who are actually working as teachers/headmasters in recognized primary/ middle/high/higher secondary, etc. schools only shall be considered. Teachers who are teaching upto class VIII should be considered in the category of Primary School Teachers and those teaching classes IX-XII in the category of Secondary School Teachers. For teachers promoting Integrated inclusive Education the eligibility will stand reduced from 15 years of class teaching experience to 10 years of service, and from 20 years of Headmasters to 15 years if they are to be considered for awards in respect of Inclusive Education. 2. For teachers promoting Integrated inclusive Education the eligibility will stand reduced from 15 years of class teaching experience to 10 years of service, and from 20 years of Headmasters to 15 years if they are to be considered for awards in respect of Inclusive Education. 2. Normally retired teachers are not eligible for the award but those teachers who have served a part of the calendar year (atleast for four months i.e., upto 30th April in the year to which National Award relates) may be considered if they fulfill all other conditions. The service rendered on re-employment after attaining the age of superannuation will not count as eligible service. 3. Teachers whose names were recommended last year or before can be considered again if they are still otherwise eligible and are recommended by the State Govt./Union Territories. 4. Educational Administrators, Inspectors of Education, and the staff of training colleges are not eligible for these awards. 5. Only those teachers having requisite years of teaching experience, as mentioned as Sl.No.1 above, on 31st December of the preceding year of the Award will be eligible to be considered for the award. II.MAIN CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD GUIDE THE SELECTION OF TEACHERS AT VARIOUS LEVELS: 1. Teachers reputation in the local community; 2. His academic efficiency and desire for its improvement. 3. His genuine interest in and love for children; and 4. His involvement in the social life of the community.” The procedure for selection is detailed as under: III. PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION: 1. The initial selection shall be made at the district level by a District Committee from amongst the names recommended by the District Education Officer, a District Inspector of schools or such other local authorities e.g. Corporation, Panchayat etc. which the State Govt. may determine in the context of local conditions. No teacher shall be asked or permitted to apply for the award. The names shall be recommended by the District Education Officer etc. on the basis of the Teachers’ record or work. 2. The State Selection Committee shall scrutinize and sift the recommendations of the District Committee and recommend to the State Government two names for each award allotted to the State and one or two names of Sanskrit/Arabic teachers if found suitable. The names of teachers selected by the State Committee shall be arranged in order of merit before they are recommended to the State Govt. The names of teachers selected by the State Committee shall be arranged in order of merit before they are recommended to the State Govt. who shall forward the same to the Central Govt. Along with character certificate of faultless antecedents and absolute integrity duly signed by the Education Secretary. The recommendations of the State Selection Committee shall not be modified by the State Government to substitute names, or to disturb the order of merit recommended by the State Selection committee. However, if the State Govt. is of the view that any of the selected teacher is otherwise unfit for the award, it may recommend omission of such names to the Central Govt. furnishing details for the same. 3. The State/UTs. School systems shall recommend at least the prescribed no. of awards under the category “Special Awards”. In case they do not find suitable no. of teachers under this category the award will not be recommended, but in that situation the no. of allocated awards for special award shall not be transferred to the general category. 4. The final selection will be made by the Central Government. DISTRICT COMMITTEE 1. District Inspector of Schools : CHAIRMAN 2. Head of a Primary Training Institution : MEMBER 3. Headmaster of a Secondary School : MEMBER STATE COMMITTEE 1. Director of Education/Director of Public Instructions CHAIRMAN 2. Principal of Training College MEMBER 3. Field Adviser of the State as Standing nominee of the Central Government. MEMBER” On the basis of this scheme, the Director of Public Instruction has by Ext.P1 circular dated 14.7.2004 issued guidelines for selection of teachers for recommendation for national award. It is dissatisfied with these guidelines that the petitioners have approached this Court. Their main grievance is regarding the forwarding of the names at the first stage itself i.e., at the stage of recommending names for consideration by the District Level committee. According to the counsel for the petitioners, even going by Ext.P1 scheme, the task of suggesting the names for consideration by the District Level Committee should not be entrusted exclusively with the DEO. According to them, the scheme itself provides that such recommendation should be from various sources such as DEO, district Inspector of Schools, local authorities such as Corporation, Panchayat etc. According to them, the scheme itself provides that such recommendation should be from various sources such as DEO, district Inspector of Schools, local authorities such as Corporation, Panchayat etc. and since the scheme itself envisages recommendation of names from various sources, the present procedure adopted by the Government of entrusting the task of initial selection of teachers to the DEO alone would lead to arbitrariness, favouritism, nepotism etc., 5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the scheme and the guidelines issued themselves contain necessary safeguards for obviating any such arbitrariness or favouritism in the matter of selection of teachers at the initial level itself. The learned Government Pleader submits that the DEO who is in charge of all the schools in the District is fully conversant with the character, qualifications and capabilities of teachers in all the schools in the District, which no other person connected with the field of education has in that particular District and therefore he is the ideal person to be entrusted with the task of making the initial recommendation. According to the Government Pleader, the scheme formulated by the Central Government also envisages only one entity in the initial level of recommendation to be chosen from among the categories enumerated which the State Government has chosen as the DEO, which is appropriate in the circumstances. 6. On a consideration of the rival arguments, as also the scheme and circular placed on record, we are of opinion that essentially the scheme and the guidelines contain elaborate guidelines for the purpose of recommendation by the authorities for national awards for teachers. In fact, the scheme contemplates a three tier system in the State itself before recommending names for grant of national awards to the Central government who is the ultimate authority who decides the award. The initial names are recommended by the DEO to the District Level Committee, which consists of the Deputy Director of Education, Head of a primary training institution and Headmaster of a secondary school, which would consider the names recommended by the DEO and choose appropriate number of persons which would be forwarded to the State Committee consisting of the Director of Public Instruction, Principal, training college, and the Field Advisor, NCERT of the State as a standing nominee of the Central Government. The State Committee would consider the names recommended by the District committee and would recommend the most suitable persons to the State Government, who in turn, shall forward the same to the Central Government. Accordingly, we find that elaborate procedure has been prescribed with suitable guidelines for the purpose of selection of teachers for national awards at the State level. 7. However, one factor disturbs us. Although there is a three tier system, the three tier system itself works only on the initial recommendation by the DEO. The DEO is a single individual who may not be beyond reproach at all times. He or she as all human beings may also be susceptible to human frailties. As such, the question that haunts us is whether it is safe to entrust such an important task to a single individual like the DEO alone or should the District Level Committee consider recommendations from other sources also to obviate the possibility of deserving candidates being ignored. 8. In this connection, we may note that the contention of the petitioners that the procedure for selection contemplated by the scheme formulated by the Government of India postulates recommendation of names not only by the DEO but others like the District Inspector of Schools, local authorities etc. on the face of the language used in the scheme, although the same leaves much to be desired, does not appear to be correct. What we find from Clause I of the procedure for selection quoted above, is that it is for the State Government to determine in the contend of local conditions as to who should be entrusted with the task of initial selection from among the DEO, the District Inspector of Schools or such other local authorities, for e.g., Corporation, Panchayat etc. That would mean that the State Government could entrust the task to anyone of those entities based on the local conditions. 9. It is also true that the DEO is a person who is conversant with the merits and demerits of all the teachers in the schools under his jurisdiction. That would mean that the State Government could entrust the task to anyone of those entities based on the local conditions. 9. It is also true that the DEO is a person who is conversant with the merits and demerits of all the teachers in the schools under his jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the same, we find that conferment of the power to recommend persons for selection to the District Level Committee, from whom alone the District Level committee can make further recommendation, on the single individual, the DEO, is susceptible to arbitrariness and favouritism especially in the present day circumstances under which more often than not merit takes a back seat while considering such matters. Ensuring that deserving candidates are recommended is as equally important as ensuring that undeserving candidates are not recommended. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the elaborate guidelines and safeguards given in the scheme of the Central Government as well as the guidelines prescribed by the Director of Public Instruction, we think that it would be more appropriate that the State Government themselves think in terms of getting names of eligible teachers from different sources, instead of confining the source to the DEO alone which would ensure more transparent and impartial selection of teachers for such recommendation. 10. Since what prompted the petitioners to file this public interest litigation is their righteous indignation in seeing a person namely, Smt. Lalithakumari, who according to the petitioners is a most deserving candidate for consideration of the prestigious award, being omitted to be recommended by the DEO, we consider it apposite to say a few words about that also. From the credentials provided by the petitioners in the writ petition the said Smt. Lalithakumari appears to be a fine teacher. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent –DPI it is stated thus: “4. xxx xxxx xxx. It is true that Smt. Lalithakumari has been awarded the State Award for Teachers in 2002 considering her so called (sic) achievements. Xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxx x xxxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxxx x xxxxxx x Xxxx x x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxxxx xx 10. It is submitted that the selection for recommendation for National Award of teachers scrutinized by the District Level Committee was strictly only in accordance with the Exhibit P1 order. Xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxx x xxxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxxx x xxxxxx x Xxxx x x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxxxx xx 10. It is submitted that the selection for recommendation for National Award of teachers scrutinized by the District Level Committee was strictly only in accordance with the Exhibit P1 order. It is true that Smt. B. Lalithakumari is one among the good teachers in this Revenue district. But the proposal submitted by B. Lalithakumari was not in full shape and against the norms. Moreover, it was belated. Nobody has recommended her name before the District Level Committee. She herself submitted the proposal in a later date then the District Level Committee finalised the panel of teachers for National Awards. Hence the District Level Committee was not in a position to recommend the proposal. 11. It is submitted that Nepotism and corruption for the selection of national Awards for teachers as alleged by the petitioner is false. There is no malafide intention not to recommend the name of B. Lalithakumari for National Award. No application with supporting documents was submitted for considering the same. The charge leveled against the 6th respondent that she demanded many for recommending the name of teacher for award is baseless. This respondent has the strong opinion that the name of respondents 7 to 10 has been recommended to the National Award by the District level committee considering their reputation in local community and the academic efficiency etc. It is true that B. Lalithakumari is one among the good teachers in the Alappuzha revenue district. But her eligibility for National Award was not examined by the district Level Committee as her name was not submitted before the Committee by anybody. But the proposal for selection of National Award submitted by Smt. Lalithakumari was belated and not in full shape and against he norms. Hence the District Level committee was not in a position to recommend the proposal and the Committee has already recommended a panel. 11. These statements in the counter affidavit would in fact support the public cause which the petitioners project in this writ petition. Hence the District Level committee was not in a position to recommend the proposal and the Committee has already recommended a panel. 11. These statements in the counter affidavit would in fact support the public cause which the petitioners project in this writ petition. But in the absence of any material before us to assess the comparative merits between Smt. Lalithakumary, on the one hand and respondents 7 to 10, whose names were recommended by the DEO, on the other, we are unable to enter a finding regarding her eligibility to be recommended for consideration as the number of names which could be recommended is limited. However, the case of the said Smt. Lalithakumary, is certainly one on point, in the matter of assessing the creditworthiness of the point which the petitioners wanted to drive home in this writ petition, which is the danger of entrusting the task of initial selection of teachers on one individual alone, namely the DEO. We must say that the petitioners have in fact succeeded to a great extent in their attempt, and we do appreciate their efforts in that regard. 12. In the above circumstances, we deem it proper to direct that the State Government should consider framing appropriate guidelines in that line also to ensure that apart from seeing that ineligible persons are not recommended, it would also be ensured that eminently eligible persons are not excluded from consideration, by evolving an appropriate method by which the District Level Committee has before it really deserving candidates, obviating the possibility of the chances of such deserving candidates being omitted, as a result of entrusting the task of initial selection to one individual alone who may be fallible like all human beings. We would appreciate it very much if the Government does it with expedition at least so as to implement it during the next year. But we must hasten to add that the Government should also take care to see that the same should not result in bringing in other worse sources, which would result in more problems than it seeks to remedy. With the above direction, we dispose of the writ petition.