WP 6337/11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6337/2011 Pandurang s/o Shankerrao Pole, age 45 yrs., occu.service, r/o Mamata Niwas, Vayas Nagar, Naldurg. Tq.Tuljapur Dist.Osmanabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Higher Education and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Director of Vocational Education And Training, Office, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai. 3] Dy.Director of Vocational Education And Training, Regional Office, Aurangabad. 4] Dnyaneshwar s/o Murlidahar Kothawade, age major, occu.service, r/o C.L.7-49/2, 12th Scheme, Shivaji Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri M.R. Jamdhade, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader and Shri V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..... WP 6337/11 - 2 - CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE: 05.09.2011 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] Though we are aware that the order, which we are proposing to pass, is somewhat exceptional, however, taking into consideration the urgency of the matter and the documents, which are placed before us, we find it in the interest of justice to pass the order that we propose to pass hereafter. 3] The petitioner as well as the respondent no.4, both are competing for grant of award called as Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar. The Government, vide Government resolution dated 16.2.2010, has prescribed certain norms for grant of such an award. Insofar as the petitioner and the respondent no.4 are concerned, they are competing from the category of vocational education. 4] It is not in dispute that initially the Deputy Director of Vocational Education at Aurangabad had recommended the name of the petitioner for grant of said award. WP 6337/11 - 3 - 5] Insofar as one of the main criterion is concerned, it would reveal that a candidate is required to publish at least two papers and 10 project reports pertaining to the trade in which he teaches. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has published two papers viz. [1] Globalization & Vocational Education in India, and [2] Pollutions from Exhausts of Vehicles – Remedies. In addition, the petitioner has also published two articles as stated in his application. The petitioner has also published 11 project reports. 6] Insofar as the respondent no.4 is concerned, the perusal of his application would reveal that he has not mentioned publication of a single paper. Shri S.S. Tope, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, submits that since in the prescribed format, there is no provision regarding mentioning of the publication of papers, the respondent no.4 had not furnished the details about the same. It is difficult to accept the said contention inasmuch as on the perusal of the Government resolution would reveal that it is one of the essential criterion. 7] As far as the second requirement is concerned, it requires that the teacher concerned should have achieved target of providing employment, self employment or apprenticeship to 60% of the students working with him for the last five years. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has almost achieved the same target. The perusal of the comparative chart would reveal that the petitioner excels much more than the respondent no.4 even in this respect. WP 6337/11 - 4 - 8] So far as one of the conditions, which provides that at least 50% of the students, who were the students of the teacher concerned for the last five years, ought to have secured more than 60% marks and 10% of such students ought to have secured more than 75% marks. The perusal of the petitioner’s performance would reveal that the petitioner excels in this criteria. As a matter of fact, in three years, the students, who have secured more than 60% marks, are more than 90%. Insofar as the respondent no.4 is concerned, it would reveal that in one year, only 6 out of 17 students have secured more than 60% marks. As such for the academic year 2006-07, there are not even 40% of the students, who have secured more than 60% of the marks. 9] There is one more requirement that the candidate concerned must have produced the educational material so that the students understand the subject in a proper perspective. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the perusal of his material would reveal that the petitioner has produced various material in the subject of auto engineering technician. However, insofar as the respondent no.4 is concerned, the only material is some notes, even details of which are not given. 10] One another criteria is that the candidate concerned should take an effort for publishing the scheme. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has given all the details regarding the meetings and seminars conducted by him. The WP 6337/11 - 5 - perusal of his papers would reveal that the petitioner has conducted not less than 12 of such events. However, insofar as the respondent no.4 is concerned, he has only mentioned that he has held certain seminars, however, no such details are given. 11] Taking into consideration all these aspects, we find that the Deputy Director of Vocational Education, Aurangabad, had rightly recommended the name of the petitioner for grant of said award. We find that the Deputy Director had rightly applied the criterion as laid down in the said Government resolution. We find that the Government has not applied the criterion correctly and has incorrectly found that the respondent no.4 is more meritorious than the petitioner. 12] We, therefore, hold that the decision of the Government in holding that the respondent no.4 is more meritorious than the petitioner is without substance. Accordingly, we are inclined to quash and set aside the decision of the Government in holding the respondent no.4 to be eligible for grant of Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar. We further hold and declare that it is the petitioner, who is entitled for grant of such an award. We are inclined to issue such a declaration inasmuch as nothing is placed before us that there is any other person, who is competing for the said award from the category of vocational education. Since we find that the petitioner and the respondent no.4 were only the competitors and the evaluation of performance of both of them reveals that it is the petitioner, who WP 6337/11 - 6 - excels much more than the respondent no.4, we are inclined to pass such an exceptional writ of mandamus. 13] In the result, Rule is made absolute in the following terms. The decision of the Government in holding that the respondent no.4 is entitled to award of Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar is quashed and set aside. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are directed to declare the petitioner as Adarsh Shikshak from the category of vocational education and issue the said award to the petitioner. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, the learned Government Pleader, states that he would immediately convey this decision to the authorities concerned so that the authorities can make necessary arrangements for grant of said award to the petitioner in the function, which is scheduled today in the afternoon. (R.M. BORDE, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) ndk/c591131