K M CHACKO Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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.