Joginder Singh Aulakh vs Director (U.T.) Ministry of Human Resource and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the name of the Petitioner for National Award for Teachers for the year 2005. which has been held up.

It has been pleaded in the petition that the Petitioner has been working in the Education Department for the last 35 years and remained posted in various schools and institutions and has worked in various capacities, honestly and diligently. Applications were invited from teachers by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource. High Level State Committee was constituted for recommendation of the cases for giving the national award. Only three teachers were found fit for recommendation as per merit for the year 2005. The name of the Petitioner was at Sr. No. 1 in merit.

Annexure P-2 is the memo issued from the office of Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education) for short ''SE''. Punjab dated 25th August, 2006 indicating the names of the persons selected for National Award. The Petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 1.

Vide Annexure P-3 received from Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) dated 28th August, 2006, the Petitioner was informed that the function for distribution of National Award to Teachers for the award year 2005 would be held on 5th September, 2006 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. The Petitioner was required to reach the hotel on 3rd September, 2006 and was allowed to travel by rail on expenses to be paid by the Government.

The Petitioner received communication Annexure P-1 from Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi dated 21st July, 2006 informing the Petitioner that the Petitioner had been selected for the National Award, 2005 under the Ministry''s Scheme of National Award to teachers. The ceremony was proposed to be held on 5th September, 2006. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner was required to complete certain formalities and, therefore, the Petitioner was asked for certain documents including his photographs.

In para No. 12, it has been pleaded that on the evening of 4th September, 2006. the Petitioner was informed by Director (U.T.), Ministry of Human Resource Development that the award of the Petitioner has been held up due to some query and only after receipt of reply to the query, the award could be released to the Petitioner. It has been brought out that the Petitioner who had already checked in the hotel had to leave without being given the National Award. It seems that the Petitioner made a representation Annexure P-4 dated 20th November, 2006 to Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Punjab for release of the award. Since the award has not been given to the Petitioner, the petition has been filed praying for release of the award.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the documents appended with the petition make it evident that the State Selection Committee had shortlisted the Petitioner for giving the National Award for Teachers at merit No. 1. Recommendation had been considered by the Government of India and the Petitioner was asked to come to Delhi for receipt of award. It has been contended that period of consideration for award was upto 30th April, 2005. The inquiry, in view of which the Award has not been released was initiated in August, 2005, therefore, it cannot be taken into account and hence the Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the petition.

The second ground on which relief has been claimed in this petition is that in February, 2005, an ordinary complaint was received in which an inquiry had been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner found no merit in the same and, therefore, it was ordered to be filed. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure P-6 appended with the petition. Subsequently, it seems that in August, 2005, some complaint was marked to the Vigilance Bureau. It has been argued that even the report submitted by the Vigilance Bureau does not indicate any such fact or circumstance that would disentitle the Petitioner to the National Award for Teachers. In this regard, learned Counsel has referred to the inquiry report placed on record by the Respondents along with covering letter from Vigilance Department, Government of Punjab dated 23rd November, 2006 as Annexure R-l and the resultant order Annexure P-5 dated 12th March, 2007.

On the third count, it has been argued that Manjinder Singh had even filed a civil writ petition in this Court in regard to the same issue. The petition was dismissed with Rs. 7,000 as costs and, therefore, the Respondents ought not to have taken notice of the complaint at the instance of the complainant Manjinder Singh.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of the court towards memo issued by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 18th February, 2005 which highlights the criteria to be adopted for recommending the names of the Teachers for National Award. It has been contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner had applied for National for the year 2004. Name of the Petitioner was not recommended by the Selection Committee, considering inadequacies and deficiencies in his work found by the inspection team after visiting the school, where the Petitioner was working.

The Petitioner did not apply for the award for the year 2005. Be that as it may, Director, Public Instructions, (S.E.), Punjab sent his report dated 19th December, 2005 recommending the name of the Petitioner for the award for the year 2005. The State Selection Committee, relying on the said report, recommended the name of the Petitioner. It was subsequently pointed out that the Petitioner was facing an inquiry by the Vigilance Department and certain infirmities in his conduct had been found where for the Petitioner had been issued a warning. This clearly disentitles the Petitioner for receipt of the National Award and in this view of the matter, on 4th September, 2006, name of the Petitioner was withdrawn from the list.

In regard to the complaint of Manjinder Singh and filing of civil writ petition, it has been argued that the writ had been dismissed in view of the fact that it was a second petition on the same cause of action. Dismissal of the writ filed by Manjinder Singh does not entitle the Petitioner to the relief claimed in this petition.

I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel and have gone through the documents, to which attention of the Court has been drawn.

Before proceeding to examine the facts, reference to the spirit of the purpose for giving national award is required to be considered. Memo dated 18th February, 2005 issued by the Government of India placed on record by the Respondents with additional affidavit of Ms. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar dated 6th July, 2009 in these regards makes it clear that while recommending the teachers, the State Committee is required to compulsorily and categorically state the special or unique attribute of each teacher on the basis of which their names have been recommended. Lack of such information may render the teachers ineligible for the award. It further provides that there must be a certificate to the effect that teachers recommended have absolutely clean record of service and flawless antecedents and no inquiry or legal/criminal/vigilance proceedings of any kind, departmental or otherwise, are pending against them.

Undisputed facts are that the Petitioner applied for National Award for Teachers for the year 2004. The Selection Committee did not recommended the name of the Petitioner in view of the fact that certain inadequacies and deficiencies were found in the work of the Petitioner by the inspection team.

The case of the Petitioner for National Award was reexamined by Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Punjab Director, Public Instructions (SE), Punjab who sent his report dated 19th December, 2005, recommending the name of the Petitioner for National Award for the year 2005. The State Selection Committee accepted the recommendation, entirely relying on the report of the Director and accordingly made the recommendation. It is further made out from the contentions made in Court that some complaint was received whereupon inquiry was marked to the Vigilance Bureau in August-September, 2005. The matter was inquired into and report was submitted with covering letter dated 23rd November, 2006. Be that as it may, it is clearly evident and not disputed that at the point in time when the award was to be given on 5th September, 2006, inquiry was pending against the Petitioner.

So far as the final result of inquiry is concerned, reference may be made to Annexure P-5 dated 12th March, 2007, operative part whereof reads as under:

After consideration of the enquiry report thoroughly which was received from the Vigilance Department against Shri Joginder Singh Aulakh, Principal, Govt. Sr. Section School, Amargarh (Sangrur) now District Education Officer (S.E.), Nawanshahar, he is ordinary warned to remain careful in the future.

The inquiry report has been placed on record alongwith a covering letter dated 23rd November, 2006. Although the Petitioner has tried to draw advantage from the fact that the writ petition of the complainant Manjinder Singh S/o Angrej Singh namely CWP No. 8037 of 2005 had been dismissed with costs which has been mentioned in the inquiry report itself, however, I find that the ground taken on behalf of the Petitioner is without any merit insomuch as the writ had been dismisssed in view of the fact that the main cause of action for filing the writ petition had been raised in the second petition. While dismissing the petition with costs, the Division Bench in para No. 6, has observed in the following terms:

We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel. As noted supra, the main prayer of the Petitioners in the earlier writ petition was for transfer of Respondent No. 6 and now cancellation of his transfer orders has again given rise to the same cause of action. Though the Petitioners have prayed for an enquiry into the conduct but the main relief prayed for is again his transfer from the present posting. Thus, the main cause of action for filing the present petition again pertains to the posting of Respondent No. 6 as the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Amargarh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present petition does not involve a service matter. As regards the prayer for an enquiry, necessary directions have already been issued in the earlier writ petition and we are confident that the authorities concerned shall not ignore the same.

Perusal of the above extracted portion indicates that this Court has observed that necessary directions had been issued for conducting an inquiry and the authorities concerned shall not ignore the same.

The Award is a citation, a conferment for exceptional work and clean record. It is a distinction, an endowment granted in recompense for worthy behaviour. The Award is an honour given for glorification of distinction of the teacher for his clean record and exemplary work. It is in recognition of honest and upright work.

No doubt such a certificate was given by the Respondents as has been impressed by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, it is clearly evident from the record that the certificate was against the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to deny the fact that indeed an inquiry had been ordered and was in progress. The vigilance inquiry attained finality with certain comments against the working of the Petitioner in the following terms:

The amount deposited in the school development fund had been spent by school head for the development works after approval by the PTA Committee. After verification of the development works done with building development fund, the technical team in their report had found no excess or less or embezzlement in the expenditure. But the deposit of some rent money in the school development fund directly by the auction holders in the above years has revealed that this money was also of governmnet auction which should also had been included in the Govt, auction money. By not doing so Principal Joginder Singh Aulakh has shown negligence in his duty. Therefore the departmental action against Sh. Joginder Singh Aulakh, Principal, Govt. Sr. Section School, Amargarh is suggested.

The observations resulted in departmental procedings and culminated in a warning issued to the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner wants this Court to take a hypertechnical view of the issue to say that the period under consideration for giving the award was earlier in point of time and, therefore, the same could not have been made the basis for withdrawing the release of award to the Petitioner. This argument, however, does not find any favour in so much as the spirit of the purpose for which the award is given is entirely different. Giving National Award cannot be equated to promotion or grant of service benefit under statutory rules. The provisions contained in Memo dated 18th February, 2005 also does not provide for the cut off date up to which record of a teacher is to be considered.

The Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training Punjab was required to consider the fact that a vigilance enquiry was pending against the Petitioner. The report submitted by the said person was clearly misleading and was based on misrepresented facts. Surely, law and equity demand that a person is not allowed to take advantage of such misrepresentation.

The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that only a mild warning had been issued and even the inquiry report does not directly indict the Petitioner, is of no consequence if considered in the context of the issue i.e. giving National Award. The record of the Petitioner was considered for giving award for the year 2004, however, certain infirmities were found in his working on account of which his name was not recommended. It shows that up to the date of consideration in 2005 also the record of the Petitioner was not worthy for consideration for National Award. The conclusion drawn after inquiry and the fact that warning had been issued indicates that the service of the Petitioner was not exemplary or outstanding so as to entitle him to the honour. It was only because complete information was not given by the Director to the National Selection Committee that the error in recommending the name of the Petitioner occurred. In case the factum of pending vigilance inquiry was brought to the notice of the State Selection Committee, surely the name of the Petitioner would not have been forwarded and certificate to the effect that no vigilance inquiry was pending, would not have been issued.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the arguments addressed on behalf of the Petitioner.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.