Hrishikesh Roy, A.C.J. - Heard Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Sri. N. Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appears for the 1st respondent. Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar, the Special Public Prosecutor, CBI, appears for the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent is represented by Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned senior counsel.

2. The petitioner, who claims to be a social activist and journalist, has filed this case to challenge the selection of the 4th respondent Sri. Nandakumaran Nair, for the Presidents Police Medal for Distinguished Service. The names of the similarly selected officers find place in the Ext.P6, which was notified on the Independence Day - 2017, but the present challenge against the said selection is surprisingly made much later, in April, 2018.

3. The senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the Ext.P7 Guideline to project that the Recommending authority, while making recommendation for the award of the Presidents Police Medal for Distinguished Service, should bear in mind the seniority of the eligible officers combined with professionalism, and this should be given priority. Moreover the Police Officers not having clean image, should not be recommended.

4. The learned counsel refers to the remarks recorded by the court in Ext.P1 judgment relating to the Bail Application No.2528 of 2013 to contend that the 4th respondent is undeserving of the recognition conferred on him. The observations made by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, in R.C.No.2(S)/2011/CBI/SCB/TVPM regarding the poor investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] is highlighted as another instance, for contending that the 4th respondent is undeserving of the distinction.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent submits that this is not a bona fide litigation filed by the petitioner and he is motivated by the action taken by the 4th respondent relating to the investigation of a crime registered as the Crime No.351/CR/HHW-II/EKM/2012 and the related B.A.No.2528 of 2013. The 4th respondent contends that he has a distinguished career in the CBI, and therefore, he is fully deserving of the recommendation, for his distinguished service.

6. The learned counsel for the CBI, in his turn, refers to the statement filed by the 2nd respondent on 18.7.2018 to deal with each of the contentions urged by the petitioner. The CBI lawyer firstly points out that the petition is belatedly filed after a year. Moreover since the selection and awarding of the Medal had already happened on 15.8.2017 and what remains is only the formal pinning of the Medal to be done by the President on 15.8.2018, the belated challenge should not be entertained.

7. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent has rendered meritorious service for which he was earlier shortlisted for the award of the Presidents Police Medal for Meritorious Service in the year 2008. Now on the basis of his performance in the Organization for the past 35 years in the year 2017, he was given the Presidents Police Medal for Distinguished Service.

8. Insofar as the adverse comments recorded in the Ext.P1 proceedings, it is pointed out that the CBI was not originally arrayed in the B.A.No.2528 of 2013 proceeding and they were impleaded only on the date of the order. Moreover the concerned observation was recorded without hearing the CBI or without providing any opportunity to the 4th respondent against whom certain adverse comments were recorded by the Court.

9. The selection for award of the Presidents Police Medal for Distinguished Service is on the basis of the recommendation to be made by the concerned Organization, in terms of the Ext.P7 Guidelines. Next the recommended names are considered by the Selection Committee of senior officers who, after due deliberation, finalize the names if they satisfy the criteria prescribed by the Government. The shortlisted names are then forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs for further verification and scrutiny, and after due satisfaction, the deserving Officer will be selected for award of the Medal.

10. In the instant case, the process leading to the selection of the 4th respondent for awarding of the Medal is not questioned and therefore, we must proceed on the basis that the norms specified under Ext.P7, were duly taken into account by the Recommending authority as also by the Selection Committee. At any rate, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Guidelines were disregarded while shortlisting the 4th respondent.

11. At this juncture, we may notice the observations made by the Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 361 [LQ/SC/1995/1336] , in the context of a challenge against Padma Awards, where the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"30. The National Awards are not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. Article 51-A of the Constitution speaks of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. In this context, we may refer to the various clauses of Article 51-A and specifically clause (j) which exhorts every citizen "to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement." It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to recognise excellence in the performance of these duties."

12. If we proceed on the above basis and bear in mind the circumstances under which the observation in the Ext.P1 judgment was recorded by the Court, without opportunity to the 4th respondent, and also the observations in Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, where no specific finding was rendered against the 4th respondent, we are of the considered view that the 4 th respondent earned no disqualification by those remarks. In other words he was entitled for conferment of the Distinguished Medal. In any case the selection cannot be said to be arbitrarily done so as to merit interference by this Court. It cannot also be overlooked that the awards were conferred in August, 2017 and a much belated challenge is made in April, 2018 which indicates a non-bona fide challenge.

13. Following the foregoing discussion, we find the petition to be devoid of merit, and the same is thus dismissed.