Pulavar Nellai A. Ganapathy Vs. the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Education, New Delih and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - writ - article 226 of constitution of india - petition for directing chairman of state level committee for national awards for teachers to consider his name for recommendation to national awards - allegedly proper guidelines not followed - writ of mandamus granted when failure to discharge statutory obligation imposed on authority - petitioner failed to establish legal duty cast on respondent - also he could not claim award as matter of right - held, question not justiciable to exercise power of court under article 226. - - 1992 and continued in service till 31st may, 1993. it is also alleged in the affidavit that under the main considerations that should guide the selection of the teachers, the teacher's reputation in the local community, his academic efficiency his desire for its improvement, his genuine interest in and that the love for children and his involvement in the social life of the community are to be considered by the selection committee, that in the normal course his name would have been considered for recommendation for the award and that certain unfortunate course of events which took place at the district level committee for this year's award have prevented his name being recommended. ramachandran to be recommended for the national award. the petitioner also alleged that the director of school education, the second respondent herein, by order dated 23-2-1993 communicated to all the district educational officer in the state certain instructions that the teachers who have retired from service up to 31-12-1992 and continuing on re employment up to 31-5-1993 need not be recommended. the petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that on coming to know that the selection was not based on merits but on extraneous considerations, made a representation to the chief minister of tamil nadu in the month of may, 1993, that remarks were called for from the chief minister's special cell, and that the petitioner had been replied that his name was not recommended by the district level committee and as such his name was not considered by the state level committee. the petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that guidelines have not been followed strictly, that for tamil nadu 15 awards are given every year for which the state level committee will recommend 30 names and that this year, thefourth respondent has recommended 15 names only including the name of the said o. writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the authority concerned and there is a failure on the part of that authority to discharge that statutory obligation. here is a case where names have to be considered by the committee and the said committee recommended other names leaving out the name of the petitioner. as such, i do not think that the petitioner can insist upon that he is entitled to be recommended to have the national award as a matter of right. nor i am satisfied that the allegations made in the affidavit thatthe constitution of the committee was changed just to oblige one. i am not inclined to accept the vague allegations made against respondents 5 and 6. it is settled law that even (sic) allegations are made, unless this court is satisfied ther is no need for the respondents to file counter-affidavits and on mere allegations, which are so vague, no mandamus can issue see:order1. this writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on thursday the 26th day august 1993; upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of mr. a. ravindran for m/s. sasikala jacob and h. rajashekar, advocate for the petitioner, court made the following order-the prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus for being the secretary, department of education, ministry of human resources development, central secretariat, new delhi the first respondent herein from considering the recommendations made by the chairman of the tamil nadu state level committee for national award to teachers for 1993 the second respondent herein and consequently directing the chairman for tamil nadu state level committee for national award for teachers, 1993 the second respondent herein to consider the name of the petitioner for recommendation to the national award to teachers 1993.2. the petitioner is a retired headmaster of the government higher secondary school, madras-78. he is an m.a., m.ed. and pulavar in tamil. it is stated in the affidavit that in recognition of the service of the petitioner, the government of tamil nadu awarded him the state award called 'nallasiriyar virudhu' in the year 1981 and that he has been awarded prizes, medals and certificates by various literary associations and that he composed many lyrics for a.i.r. and t. v. for many years. it is also alleged that under the scheme for 'national award' the government of india has issued certain guidelines called 'conditions of eligibility of teachers for considertion of the awards', that one of such conditions is that headmasters with twenty years of teaching exprience are eligible, that he had put in totally 36 years of service that the retired form service only in nov. 1992 and continued in service till 31st may, 1993. it is also alleged in the affidavit that under the main considerations that should guide the selection of the teachers, the teacher's reputation in the local community, his academic efficiency his desire for its improvement, his genuine interest in and that the love for children and his involvement in the social life of the community are to be considered by the selection committee, that in the normal course his name would have been considered for recommendation for the award and that certain unfortunate course of events which took place at the district level committee for this year's award have prevented his name being recommended. it is further alleged in the affidavit that as per thecommunication sent by the first respondent, the recommunications of the state government should be sent to him on 30-4-1993 positively, that the director of school education who is the chairman of the state level committee appointed the district educational officer (madras south) as chairman apart from another member o. ramachandran as the member of the south madras, district level committee. the petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that as per the proceedings of the second respondent the committee had to meet on 10-3-1993, that one of the members o. ramachandran approached the second respondent and as a result of the said personal approach, one durairaj was appointed as member, replacing the said o. ramachandran. it is also alleged in the affidavit that the newly formed district level committee (madras south) finally selected the said o. ramachandran to be recommended for the national award. the petitioner also alleged that the director of school education, the second respondent herein, by order dated 23-2-1993 communicated to all the district educational officer in the state certain instructions that the teachers who have retired from service up to 31-12-1992 and continuing on re employment up to 31-5-1993 need not be recommended. this is according to the petitioner, against the guidelines. the petitioner alleges in the affidavit that there is some relationship between the said o. ramachandaran with the fourth respondent. the petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that on coming to know that the selection was not based on merits but on extraneous considerations, made a representation to the chief minister of tamil nadu in the month of may, 1993, that remarks were called for from the chief minister's special cell, and that the petitioner had been replied that his name was not recommended by the district level committee and as such his name was not considered by the state level committee. the petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that guidelines have not been followed strictly, that for tamil nadu 15 awards are given every year for which the state level committee will recommend 30 names and that this year, thefourth respondent has recommended 15 names only including the name of the said o. ramachandran. it is also alleged that as per the communication of the first respondent herein, the names of national awardees will be announced by the first respondent on 5-9-1993 and that awards will be distributed only on 5-9-1994. with these allegations, the petitioner is before me with the prayer as stated above. 3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso and have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. first of all, i am not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus on the facts and circumstances of case as i am of the view that the allegations are vague. that apart, i do not think that any teacher has got a right to get a national award at (or) any award for that matter. it is settled law (that) issue of writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the authority concerned and there is a failure on the part of that authority to discharge that statutory obligation. i am of the view that there must be a legal right to ask for the performance of the legal duty to party for the issue of writ of mandamus. i am of the view that it is necessary for the petitioner first to establish that a legal duty is cast upon the first respondent to do a particular public duty and the respondents have not discharged the duties cast upon them. when there is no such duty, but 1 do not think that a mandamus can issue. here is a case where names have to be considered by the committee and the said committee recommended other names leaving out the name of the petitioner. as such, i do not think that the petitioner can insist upon that he is entitled to be recommended to have the national award as a matter of right. awards are to be given and not be given for mere asking. award is given in appreciation of the persons' work in a paricular field, but on the facts and circumstances of the case, i do not think that the petitioner can claim that he is entitled to an award. nor i am satisfied that the allegations made in the affidavit thatthe constitution of the committee was changed just to oblige one. 0. ramachandran to get the award. i am not inclined to accept the vague allegations made against respondents 5 and 6. it is settled law that even (sic) allegations are made, unless this court is satisfied ther is no need for the respondents to file counter-affidavits and on mere allegations, which are so vague, no mandamus can issue see: : [1964]6scr330 . 5. that apart, i am of the view that this question is not justiciable to exercise the power of this court under art 226 of the constitution of india. there are no merits in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. 6. petition dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on thursday the 26th day August 1993; upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Ravindran for M/s. Sasikala Jacob and H. Rajashekar, Advocate for the petitioner, Court made the following order-

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus for being the Secretary, Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Central Secretariat, New Delhi the first respondent herein from considering the recommendations made by the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu State Level Committee for National Award to teachers for 1993 the second respondent herein and consequently directing the Chairman for Tamil Nadu State Level Committee for National Award for Teachers, 1993 the second respondent herein to consider the name of the petitioner for recommendation to the National Award to teachers 1993.

2. The petitioner is a retired Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Madras-78. He is an M.A., M.Ed. and Pulavar in Tamil. It is stated in the affidavit that in recognition of the service of the petitioner, the Government of Tamil Nadu awarded him the State award called 'Nallasiriyar Virudhu' in the year 1981 and that he has been awarded prizes, medals and certificates by various literary associations and that he composed many lyrics for A.I.R. and T. V. for many years. It is also alleged that under the scheme for 'National Award' the Government of India has issued certain guidelines called 'Conditions of eligibility of teachers for considertion of the awards', that one of such conditions is that headmasters with twenty years of teaching exprience are eligible, that he had put in totally 36 years of service that the retired form service only in Nov. 1992 and continued in service till 31st May, 1993. It is also alleged in the affidavit that under the main considerations that should guide the selection of the teachers, the teacher's reputation in the local community, his academic efficiency his desire for its improvement, his genuine interest in and that the love for children and his involvement in the social life of the community are to be considered by the selection committee, that in the normal course his name would have been considered for recommendation for the award and that certain unfortunate course of events which took place at the District Level Committee for this year's award have prevented his name being recommended. It is further alleged in the affidavit that as per thecommunication sent by the first respondent, the recommunications of the State Government should be sent to him on 30-4-1993 positively, that the Director of School Education who is the Chairman of the State Level Committee appointed the District Educational Officer (Madras South) as Chairman apart from another Member O. Ramachandran as the member of the South Madras, District Level Committee. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that as per the proceedings of the second respondent the Committee had to meet on 10-3-1993, that one of the members O. Ramachandran approached the second respondent and as a result of the said personal approach, one Durairaj was appointed as Member, replacing the said O. Ramachandran. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the newly formed District Level Committee (Madras South) finally selected the said O. Ramachandran to be recommended for the National Award. The petitioner also alleged that the Director of School Education, the second respondent herein, by order dated 23-2-1993 communicated to all the District Educational Officer in the State certain instructions that the Teachers who have retired from service up to 31-12-1992 and continuing on re employment up to 31-5-1993 need not be recommended. This is according to the petitioner, against the guidelines. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that there is some relationship between the said O. Ramachandaran with the fourth respondent. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that on coming to know that the selection was not based on merits but on extraneous considerations, made a representation to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the month of May, 1993, that remarks were called for from the Chief Minister's Special Cell, and that the petitioner had been replied that his name was not recommended by the District Level Committee and as such his name was not considered by the State Level Committee. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that guidelines have not been followed strictly, that for Tamil Nadu 15 awards are given every year for which the State Level Committee will recommend 30 names and that this year, thefourth respondent has recommended 15 names only including the name of the said O. Ramachandran. It is also alleged that as per the communication of the first respondent herein, the names of National Awardees will be announced by the first respondent on 5-9-1993 and that awards will be distributed only on 5-9-1994. With these allegations, the petitioner is before me with the prayer as stated above.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso and have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

4. First of all, I am not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus on the facts and circumstances of case as I am of the view that the allegations are vague. That apart, I do not think that any teacher has got a right to get a National Award at (or) any award for that matter. It is settled law (that) issue of writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. Writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the authority concerned and there is a failure on the part of that authority to discharge that statutory obligation. I am of the view that there must be a legal right to ask for the performance of the legal duty to party for the issue of writ of mandamus. I am of the view that it is necessary for the petitioner first to establish that a legal duty is cast upon the first respondent to do a particular public duty and the respondents have not discharged the duties cast upon them. When there is no such duty, but 1 do not think that a mandamus can issue. Here is a case where names have to be considered by the Committee and the said Committee recommended other names leaving out the name of the petitioner. As such, I do not think that the petitioner can insist upon that he is entitled to be recommended to have the National Award as a matter of right. Awards are to be given and not be given for mere asking. Award is given in appreciation of the persons' work in a paricular field, but on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner can claim that he is entitled to an Award. Nor I am satisfied that the allegations made in the affidavit thatthe constitution of the Committee was changed just to oblige one. 0. Ramachandran to get the Award. I am not inclined to accept the vague allegations made against respondents 5 and 6. It is settled law that even (sic) allegations are made, unless this Court is satisfied ther is no need for the respondents to file counter-affidavits and on mere allegations, which are so vague, no mandamus can issue See: : [1964]6SCR330 .

5. That apart, I am of the view that this question is not justiciable to exercise the power of this court under Art 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.

6. Petition dismissed.