/* remove this */ Blogger Widgets /* remove this */

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

UP TET 2011 : Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department awaiting copy of Allahabad Highcourt decision

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को हाई कोर्ट के फैसले का इंतजार
 (UPTET : Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department awaiting copy of Allahabad Highcourt decision)


लखनऊ, 13 दिसंबर (जागरण ब्यूरो) : बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित प्राथमिक स्कूलों में 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए बीती 30 नवंबर को प्रकाशित विज्ञापन को रद करने के हाइ कोर्ट के आदेश के बाद बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग असमंजस में है। आगे की कार्यवाही तय करने से पहले विभाग को विज्ञापन रद करने के बारे में दिए गए हाई कोर्ट के आदेश की प्रति हासिल करने का इंतजार है। शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के विज्ञापन को रद करने के अदालत के आदेश के बाद मंगलवार को दिन भर बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में सरगर्मी रही। कोर्ट के आदेश को लेकर आला अधिकारी पशोपेश में रहे क्योंकि उन्हें देर शाम तक आदेश की प्रति नहीं मिल पाई थी। शासन से लेकर बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय तक अफसरों में यह जानने की जिज्ञासा थी कि कोर्ट ने किस बिंदु पर आपत्ति जताते हुए विज्ञापन को रद करने का आदेश दिया है। कोर्ट की आपत्ति और अपेक्षा के आधार पर ही विभाग आगे की कार्यवाही की दिशा तय करेगा। मंगलवार को ही राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) के निदेशक दिनेश चंद्र कनौजिया ने जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों (डायट) के प्राचार्यो के साथ बैठक की। बैठक में शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के विज्ञापन को कोर्ट द्वारा रद किए जाने के मुद्दे पर भी चर्चा हुई। एससीईआरटी निदेशक ने डायट प्राचार्यो से कहा कि कोर्ट का आदेश मिलने के बाद ही आगे की कार्यवाही तय करेगा। इस संबंध में जो भी दिशानिर्देश होंगे, वे डायट प्राचार्यों को सूचित कर दिए जाएंगे। गौरतलब है कि जिलों में शिक्षकों के चयन की कार्यवाही डायट प्राचार्य की अध्यक्षता में गठित समिति द्वारा की जाएगी।
News : Jagran ( 14.12.11)
************************************
Copy of Allahabad highcourt decision for UP Primary Teacher selection not yet received by Basic Education Department, Uttar Pradesh. Highcourt cancelled advertisement dated 30th Nov 2011 for teachers selection in UP.
After receiving order of court, next course of action will be taken accordingly : Basic Education Dept., UP.
***************************************
टीईटी पर कदम-दर-कदम मिला एक ही सवाल (UP Teacher eligibility test : Hot discussions everywhere)
वरिष्ठ संवाददाता, इलाहाबाद : कटरा का नेतराम चौराहा। समय सुबह के 10.30 बजे। प्रतियोगी छात्रों का एक झुंड बैठा चाय पी रहा था। सहायक अध्यापक नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया पर चर्चा जोरों पर थी। हाईकोर्ट द्वारा बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा जारी सहायक शिक्षकों के विज्ञापन को रद करने और अब आगे की संभावनाओं पर जेरे बहस जारी थी। कोई कह रहा था फिर से विज्ञापन आएगा, तो कोई इसका विरोध कर रहा था। कोई कह रहा था कि प्रदेश स्तर पर मेरिट बनेगी तो कोई, जनपद स्तर पर अड़ा हुआ था। सवाल एक पर उसके रूप अनेक थे। सबकी संयुक्त चिंता यह थी कि क्या भर्ती प्रक्रिया 31 दिसंबर तक पूरी हो पाएगी। माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद का भी यही नजारा था। यहां भी अभ्यर्थी कई झुंड में चर्चा में मशगूल दिखे। चर्चा का विषय वही। कोई पांच जिलों के आवेदन शुल्क पर खर्च हुए पैसे को डूबा बता रहा था तो कोई इसका विरोध कर रहा था, पर सबसे बड़ा सवाल यही था कि क्या 31 दिसंबर तक सहायक अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया पूरी हो पाएगी। साझा चिंता थी कि कहीं कोई बड़ा लोचा न फंस जाए। दरअसल, अभी भी कई बिंदुओं पर अभ्यर्थियों ने हाईकोर्ट की शरण ली है। कुछ आधार काफी मजबूत भी हैं। इनमें से पात्रता परीक्षा को चयन प्रक्रिया बनाए जाने को चुनौती दी गई है। राज्य स्तर पर बने मेरिट अभ्यर्थियों ने बेसिक शिक्षा में सहायक अध्यापकों की चयन प्रक्रिया में राज्य स्तर की मेरिट बनाए जाने की मांग की है। इस संदर्भ में अभ्यर्थियों ने बुधवार को चंद्रशेखर आजाद पार्क में दोपहर 12 बजे बैठक बुलाई गई है। आयु सीमा बढ़ाने की मांग की बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों के चयन के लिए भूतपूर्व सैनिकों ने आयु बढ़ाने की मांग की है। तर्क है कि शिक्षकों के चयन के पैरा दो में अधिकतम आयुसीमा में केवल तीन साल की ही छूट दी गई है। इससे केवल 43 वर्ष के ही भूतपूर्ण सैनिक आवेदन कर सकते हैं। सैनिकों का कहना है कि बीटीसी 2011 में भूतपूर्व सैनिकों के संबंध में पैरा 3ख में आयु संबंधी शिथिलता सेना में संपूर्ण अवधि को वास्तविक आयु में से घटाकर और उसके बाद तीन वर्ष की और छूट देने की बात कही गई है। भूतपूर्व सैनिकों ने बीटीसी 2011 के आधार पर सहायक अध्यापक की भर्ती में आयु में छूट देने की मांग की है।
News : Jagran ( 14.12.11)
************************************************************
टीईटी : आवेदन का कन्फ्यूजन

गोरखपुर। विज्ञापन पर हाईकोर्ट द्वारा रोक लगाए जाने। मार्कशीट न मिलने, आवेदन की अंतिम तिथि केवल 19 दिसंबर तक होने समेत तमाम समस्याओं को लेकर टीईटी पास अभ्यर्थी परेशान हैं। डायट पर बुधवार को कन्फ्यूजन को लेकर सैकड़ों अभ्यर्थियों का मजमा लगा रहा। तीन दिनों के भीतर डायट पर अब तक पांच सौ से अधिक आवेदन आ चुके हैं। अधिकारी इस मामले को लेकर कोई बयान देने से परहेज कर रहे हैं।
जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान (डायट) पर आवेदन पत्रों का आना शुरू हो गया है। तीन दिनों में 500 से अधिक आवेदन आ चुके हैं। आवेदन को लेकर फंसे पेच के कारण अधिकांश अभ्यर्थी शासनादेश आने का इंतजार कर रहे ताकि स्थिति स्पष्ट हो सके। लेकिन अब तक ऐसा कुछ भी नहीं हुआ। बुधवार को डायट पर टीईटी आवेदन के संबंध में चल रहे कन्फ्यूजन को लेकर अभ्यर्थी पूरे दिन जमे रहे। पर अधिकारी कुछ भी बताने से इंकार कर रहे हैं। मंडल में 32 हजार के आसपास अभ्यर्थियों ने टीईटी पास की है। डायट प्राचार्य जेएन सिंह का कहना है कि आने वाले आवेदनों की फीडिंग हो रही है। आवेदन पत्र जमा करने की अंतिम तिथि के बारे में कोई अधिकृत सूचना नहीं है
News : Amar Ujala (15.12.11)
**********************************
However today (15.12.11) new/revised advertisement is possible to displayed o UP Basic Education Dept. websit -
Click here
As per news in Jagran, 3 days extra can be give for submission of PRT teacher application.

69 comments:

  1. ye highcourt dwara aadesh kab tak aata rahega,upboard aur basic education board dwara sashodhan kab tak hota rahega aur candidates dwara baithak kab tak hoti rahegi.iske aage bhi kuchh hoga ya 31 january isi me beet jayega.

    ReplyDelete
  2. sorry, 31 dec.ko maine 31 jan. likh diya.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Friends selection ka adhar tet ki merit ki jagah purv me hi u.p.basic education dwara sujhaye gaye niyam ke dwara hona chahiye.jiske anusar-

    high school-10%
    intermediate-20%
    graduation-40%
    b.ed.-theory%(1st div.-12 mark,2nd div. 6 mark,3rd div. 3 mark)
    practical%(1st.div.-12 mark,2nd.div.- 6 mark,3rd div.-3 mark)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frnds koi to btao ab hm sbka kya hoga.. 31 dec. K phle process complete ho payega ya nhi..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ye u.p. Hai my dear, jiske man ki na ho wo hicourt pahunch jata hai .central ki naukri me sab aaram se ho jata hai. Yahi to state ki gandi rajneeti hai!

    ReplyDelete
  6. jinhone form bhej diye hai unka kya hoga reject honge kya form

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. X lagta hai aapne highscool se b.ed. Tak achhi jugad kar rakhi hai aur tet mai fuss ho.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Female gen.ka 95 hai hoga ki nahi.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gen. Male 109 hai ho ga ki nahi

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tet marit ko lekar high court me apeel hue hai ya nahe koe bhai batana.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Frndz aplog chinta mat kariye vacancy puri ki jayegi aur 31dec tak puri ho jayegi aur gen 110male ho jayega aur female 103 se upar ho jane ki umeed hai to aplog patience rakhiye aur intejar kariye sab acha hoga...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dosto jab tet ke marit ban rahe hai to 72 jilo se form kio parrahe hai sede tet ke marit ko rank dekar selection dedete time ke bachat hote paise bhe bachte.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Himansu ji court ne kiya kha.

    ReplyDelete
  14. sarita shukhla wale case me high court ka order yaha dekho
    http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1576162

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

    AFR
    Court No. - 33

    Case :- WRIT - A No. - 70682 of 2011

    Petitioner :- Sarita Shukla & Others
    Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
    Petitioner Counsel :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
    Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C., K.S.Kushwaha,
    Chandra Narayan Tripathi

    Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
    1. Heard Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents.
    2. Since a pure legal submission was advanced, learned Standing Counsel stated that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and matter may be heard on merit. I proceed to decide the matter accordingly.
    3. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that advertisement in question to the extent it provides that a candidate should restrict his application for only five districts in U.P. in his/her choice is illegal and ultra vires of the statute.
    4. The facts in brief are quite simple. An advertisement has been issued on 29/30.11.2011 with the heading "Selection of Training-Teachers for Primary Schools of U.P. Basic Education Board". While inviting application from eligible and qualified candidates, it provides that one candidate may submit his application for any of the five districts and not more than that. The advertisement contains other details of educational and training qualification, age, nationality and residence, reservation, marital status, character, procedure for submission of the application form, application fee, procedure for selection, six months special training and then clause 10 of the advertisement talks of substantive appointment.
    5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that aforesaid advertisement in so far as restricts a candidate to submit application only in five districts is per se irrational, illegal and arbitrary, hence violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. He contended that there is no logic or reason for confining a candidate to submit application only in five districts and the aforesaid restriction is wholly irrational, has no nexus with the object sought to the achieved and, therefore, is violative of Article 14. He further submitted that it also does not conform with the procedure prescribed in Rule 14(1) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1981") which talks of district-wise selection and therefore Clause 7 of advertisement as also opening para that one applicant can apply for only five districts is ultra vires of the aforesaid provision of the statute. He lastly submitted that for the purpose of providing six months special training, it is always open to the respondents to adopt any valid procedure but if for the purpose of appointment the said advertisement is to be acted upon, it would be illegal and ultra vires being contrary to the relevant statutory provisions namely 'Rules, 1981.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 6. Sri Kushwaha on the contrary submitted that the advertisement has been issued in the light of and consequence to Regulations framed by "National Council for Teachers Education Regulations" notified in Government of India Gazette dated 29.7.2011. It is said that no further advertisement is to be made for making appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary Schools maintained by Board and in fact the persons selected pursuant to the impugned advertisement shall be given six months training and on completion thereof shall be issued letters of appointment straightway without any further process of recruitment.
    7. In the above backdrop, this Court proceed to examine correctness of advertisement to the extent, impugned in this petition.
    8. Before proceeding further it is necessary to clarify some aspect of the matter. One is regarding minimum qualification of teachers and quality of teacher's training constituting essential eligibility for a person before claiming appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School; and second, relates to actual process of recruitment and appointment under relevant statutory rules relating to the service concerned.
    9. There are three statutes relevant in this matter. One is "Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972" (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1972"), Second is "National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993" (hereinafter referred to "Act 1993") and third is "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009" (hereinafter referred to as "Act 2009").

    ReplyDelete
  17. 10. Prior to the enactment of Act 1972, primary education in the State was in quite disorganized manner. There were two types of Primary Schools running in the entire State. One owned and managed by local bodies and rests were private institutions. In the rural areas, primary schools of first category were being managed by Zila Parishads and in urban areas they were being run by Municipal Boards and Mahapalikas etc. The funds to these schools were the responsibility of concerned local bodies. Privately managed Primary Schools were also having two types of categories, one which were solely managed by private bodies from their own resources and rest were those which were getting some kind of financial grant/assistance from State Government through Education Department or some other Departments like Harijan and Social Welfare etc.
    11. Article 41 in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) provides that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing right to work, to education etc. but as a matter of fact effective steps in this regard were wanting. Similarly Article 45 provides that State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of Constitution, free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years but as a matter of fact here also much remain to be done on the part of the State. In early seventies, to bring uniformity in Primary schools run by Local Bodies, considering day to day deteriorating conditions of such schools, a public demand through their representatives was raised requiring State to take immediate steps for improving primary education in the State and hence with an objective of reorganisation, reformation and expanding elementary education, State Government came forward to take over control of such schools, as were being run by Local Bodies into its own hands. It enacted U.P. Basic Education Ordinance 1972 giving effect to its provisions w.e.f. Educational Session 1972-73. The said ordinance was substituted by Act 1972. It provided for establishment of U.P. Board of Basic Education (in short the 'Board') and by virtue of Section 9, all the employees of Primary Schools maintained by local bodies stood transferred and became employee of the Board. Section 19 confers power upon the State Government to frame rules for the purpose of carrying out Act 1972 in general and in particular the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the post of officers, teachers and employees under Section 6 and 9 and also in respect to such staff teaching and non teaching of other basic schools recognized by the Board. The provisions of Act 1972 was given overriding effect over otherwise provisions in U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1952 by inserting Section 13A w.e.f. 21st June, 1979.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 12. All the basic schools virtually in the State of U.P., now, if recognized by the Board, have to conform to the provisions of Act 1972 and the rules framed thereunder.
    13. In respect to teachers of Primary Schools maintained by the Board, Rules 1981 have been framed, published in U.P. Gazette (Extra Ordinary) on 03.01.1981. The application of these rules is provided in Rule 3, as under:
    "Extent of application.- These rules shall apply to :
    (i) All teachers of local bodies transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act; and
    (ii) all teachers employed for the Basic and Nursery Schools established by the Board."
    14. At this stage, I defer further discussion of the aforesaid Rules and find it appropriate to come to the provisions of Act 1993. This is a Central Act enacted by Parliament and after receiving assent of the President on 29.12.1993 was published in the Gazette of India, (Extra.) Part II, Section 1, dated 30.12.1993. Section 1(3) provides that Act 1993 shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may appoint by notification in initial gazette. Pursuant thereto the Central Government by notification dated 1.07.1995 appointed the same day i.e. 01.7.1995 for enforcement of Act 1993.
    15. The Act 1993 was enacted with an objective of achieving planned and coordinated development for teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and properly maintenance of norms and standards in teacher education system and for matters connected therewith.
    16. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC 1, Apex Court observed that considering the objective and preamble of the Act and various provisions, it is clear that the aforesaid Act of Parliament is referable to Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution and to the extent the field is occupied by Act 1993 the State Legislature cannot encroach upon the said field.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 17. The Act 1993 contemplates establishment of a council called as "National Council For Teacher Education" (hereinafter referred as "NCTE") and its functions are enumerated in detail in Section 12 of Act 1993. It clearly talks of planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education, and determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education. It is in this regard various subjects and functions of NCTE have been enumerated in Section 12 from Clauses (a) to (n) which reads as under:
    "(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof;
    (b) make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised Institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education:
    (c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country;
    (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions.;
    (e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum;
    (f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institution for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications;
    (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training;
    (h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fee and other fee chargeable by recognised institutions;
    (i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof;
    (j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institutions;
    (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions;
    (l) formulated schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes;
    (m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and
    (n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government."

    ReplyDelete
  20. 18. The Act 1993 contemplates recognition and permission of NCTE for running courses or training in teacher education. Section 17 provides, if course or training in teacher education has been imparted or obtained in violation of the provisions of the Act, such course or training shall not be treated a valid qualification for the purpose of employment under Central Act, State Government, University, any School/College or other educational body aided by Central or the State Government. The restriction imposed by Section 17(4) is only to the extent that a training or course in teacher education which does not conform to the various provisions of Act 1993 shall not be a valid qualification for employment as stated above, and nothing more and nothing less. The entire Act 1993 does not talk of the manner in which appointments of teachers shall be made, the eligibility to be laid down for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools etc. except qualification. It is confined to the standard and quality of teachers education. In this regard NCTE obviously can lay down minimum qualification which may be prescribed for appointment of a teacher but it does not control thereafter the mode, manner and other relevant provisions regarding recruitment and appointment of such teachers.
    19. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and Ors. 2010 (5) ESC 630, the Apex Court has clearly observed in para 24 that NCTE can lay down minimum qualification for appointment of teacher by competent appointing authority or the authority competent to frame rules and regulations may lay down any qualification over and above the minimum qualification prescribed by NCTE. Para 24 of the judgment in Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra) reads as under:
    "The is no quarrel with the proposition that the State in its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualifictions as it may consider appropriate for candidates seeking admission into BTC course so long as the qualifications so prescribed are not lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act. The State can always prescribe higher qualification, ...."
    20. Meaning thereby requirement for appointment of a teacher, as contemplated by Act 1993, is that the teacher education must be such as is in conformity with Act 1993 and that the teacher must possess minimum qualification before he is considered for appointment and then on, Act 1993, in my view, stops from that stage and onwards.
    21. If I take up the case in hand, the matter would thereafter be governed by Act 1972 and the Rules 1981. The qualification required to be possessed by a teacher for appointment in a Primary School is provided in Rule 8 of Rules 1981. This rule has undergone amendments from time to time broadly. Initially it provides for a qualification up to High School and training qualification like Basic Teachers Certificate, Junior Teacher Certificate, Certificate of Teaching etc. Later on amendments were made which basically increase educational qualification of High School to Intermediate and then to Graduation but so far as training qualification is concerned, the same continue to be as such. For the first time, an amendment was made in 2004 by adding "Special Basic Teachers Certificate Course" as one of the training qualification under Rule 8(1). Subsequently another amendment came to be made by notification dated 25.11.2006 in Rule 8(1). To this extent there is no dispute among the parties.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 22. The large scale employment in Primary Schools maintained by Board constitute a major chunk of litigation before this Court in the last 20 years and more. The reason being the large number of schools and quantum of employment generated thereby.
    23. The Basic Education authorities, time and against have also contributed a lot, either by their mindless activities or deliberate and otherwise illegal acts. In fact after the judgement of Apex Court in Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858 and Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 2178 and the cases followed thereafter observing Primary Education to children from age of 6 to 14 years as a constitutional right, efforts were made by Governments, Central and State both, to expand primary education by establishing primary schools at Village Panchayat level in a major way and this really give a boomerang to number of schools as also corresponding increase in number of teachers requiring to man these institution.
    24. The Court has been informed at the Bar that at present the number of primary schools in the State of U.P. are more than one lac and twenty five thousands which obviously mean that number of posts of teachers would also exceed the said figure.
    25. It would be appropriate at this stage to remind that Parliament also recognized above right by inserting Article 21A in the Constitution i.e. 'Right to Education', by Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002, and, simultaneously inserting Clause (k) in Article 51A vide Section 4 of Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002. The Parliament also in furtherance of the above constitutional provisions, come forward by enacting Act 2009 published in Gazette of Indian on 27.8.2009. By virtue of Section 1(3) of Act 2009, it has been given effect from 01.4.2010.
    26. One of the major change it has brought, besides other, is that no Primary School other than a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local body after commencement of 2009 Act shall be established or function without obtaining a certificate of recognition from such authority, as may be prescribed. For the purpose of seeking recognition, the school has to conform the norms and standard specified in Section 19 of Act 2009 read with the schedule appended thereto. The Act 2009, vide Section 23(1), also provides that any person possessing such minimum qualification, as laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Section 23 (1) therefore also talks of only eligibility for appointment as teacher but does not confer any corresponding right upon a person to claim appointment as teacher merely if he fulfills the qualification prescribed under Section (1) of Section 23. Simultaneously there is no corresponding obligation for offering appointment to such person as teacher. The power of State Legislature vide Entry 25 List 3 Schedule VII of the Constitution therefore to the extent it make provisions for governing primary schools and providing provisions governing recruitment and conditions of service of teachers in such school is not curtailed in any manner.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 27. Now, I come to the basic provision made by NCTE which has been referred to by Sri Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for respondents. The Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India by notification No.S.O. 750 (E) dated 31.3.2010 authorised NCTE as academic authority to prescribe minimum qualification for appointment of a teacher. Consequently, with reference to Section 23(1) NCTE issued notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class 1 to 8 in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of 2009 Act.
    28. Section 2(n) of 2009 Act defines "School" for the purpose of 2009 Act and reads as under:
    "school" means any recognised school imparting elementary education and includes-
    (i) a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local authority;
    (ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority;
    (iii) a school belonging to specified category; and
    (iv) an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority;"
    29. The minimum qualification prescribed in notification dated 23.8.2010 are in two parts, one for Junior Primary School namely Classes I to V and another is for Senior Primary School i.e. Class VI to VIII. Besides educational qualifications, for the first time, it also introduced eligibility qualification of teacher i.e. Eligibility Test i.e. passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (in short 'T.E.T.') conducted by concerned Government in accordance with the guidelines laid down by NCTE. Para 3 of notification dated 23.8.2010 provides for compulsory training qualification and it reads as under:
    "Training to be undergone.- A person-
    (a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, and NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education.
    (b) with B.Ed (Special Education) or B. Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education."

    ReplyDelete
  23. 30. NCTE issued a notification on 29.7.2011 in purported exercise of powers under Section 23 of 2009 Act. The aforesaid notification has amended notification dated 23.8.2010. Sub-para (i) and (ii) of Para 1; para 3 and para 5 have been substituted in entirety. For ready reference, the amended relevant provisions i.e. para 1(i) and (ii) and para 3 reads as under:
    "1. Minimum Qualification :-
    (i) Classes I-V
    (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
    OR
    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2002.
    OR
    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)
    OR
    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
    OR
    Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
    AND
    (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
    (ii) Class VI-VIII
    (a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
    OR
    Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
    OR
    Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
    OR
    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
    OR
    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
    OR
    Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education)
    AND
    (b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose."

    ReplyDelete
  24. 31. Para 5 of notification dated 29.7.2011 is a kind of saving clause and provides that if an advertisement initiating process of appointment of teachers has already been issued before 29.7.2011, such appointments may be made in accordance with NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).
    32. Sub para (b) of para 5 provides that minimum qualification prescribed by notification dated 29.7.2011 shall apply to all teachers except the teacher for Physical Education, for which NCTE Regulation dated 03.11.2001, as amended from time to time, shall continue to apply. Further regarding teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Government and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualification in respect of such teachers.
    33. The above discussion makes it beyond doubt that the above notifications issued by NCTE lays down minimum qualification, which would make a person eligible for appointment as a teacher in Primary Schools but the manner in which recruitments for appointment on the post of teacher in Primary School shall be made, and, their terms and conditions of service, for the same, aforesaid notification does not provide anything at all and hence in this regard Rules 1981 shall hold the field and would continue to apply.
    34. Sri Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that advertisement dated 29/30.11.2011 contemplates requisite six months training contemplated in para 3 of Notification dated 29.7.2011 and for that purpose respondents authorities cannot be compelled to go to observe procedure prescribed in Rule 14(1) of Rules 1981 hence scrutiny of advertisement in question cannot be made with reference to Rules 1981. To the extent the argument is limited for making selection of persons for providing six months training contemplated in para 3 of the notification dated 29.7.2011, this court Court finds no hesitation in upholding the contention of Sri Kushwaha. The respondents need not go to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 14(1) of Rules 1981 for the purpose of selecting persons for six months Special training and there is no difficulty.
    35. If that would have been the matter, it could have rest thereat. But then the clause assailed by the petitioners has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Constitution namely Article 14. NCTE does not lay down the manner in which any person would be selected for undergoing training in six months contemplated in para 3 of the notification dated 29.7.2011 except of providing certain relaxation for reserved category candidates which is not the matter of dispute in the present case. It is the Secretary of the Board under whose authority the advertisement in question has been published containing a condition restricting a candidate from submitting his application in more than five districts.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 36. Admittedly, selection is not being made for any individual Primary School or Primary Schools constituted in a particular area namely local area or the district. If this Court treat the advertisement in question that it confine only for the purpose of selecting candidates to undergo training contemplated in para 3 of NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011, the Court finds no rationality or logic by confining a candidate to apply only for five districts and not more than that. Paras 7 and 8 of the advertisement shows that every candidate has to apply separately in different districts. Meaning therefore the selection is confined to a particular district. The District constitute a unit of selection. The candidate may be resident of any district in the State of U.P. but he may choose the district for submitting his application on his own and submit application for selection for special training pursuant to the said advertisement. However, out of the existing 75 district in the State of U.P. a candidate has been restricted for submitting applications in only five districts. What is the criteria or principle behind the condition of restricting a candidate from applying for more than five districts is not discernible from the entire advertisement. When the selection is to be made on District Level basis, if it is possible for a candidate, why he cannot apply in as much as district as he can is beyond comprehension.
    37. One of the possible ground suggested is if the candidate are permitted to apply in all the districts irrespective of any restriction with regard to number of districts, quantity of applications may become unmanageable and therefore for practical convenience, restriction has been made that a candidate should not apply for more than five districts. But the restriction to five districts and not more or less thereto is not understandable. It is not commensurating to the Commissionerates/Divisions or otherwise but appears that just a figure of five districts taken from Hat has been mentioned in the advertisement, impugned in this case. With regard to selecting number of districts as five in the above advertisement no rationality or logic could be provided by the respondents. One can understand if the selection would have been made on Provincial level then there cannot be any restriction on number of districts unless so provided by some Statute. The selection could have been made at State level and thereafter candidates could have been allocated to different district to undergo training in the concerned institutions but the respondents have adopted a totally different procedure by restricting number of applications to only five districts which is wholly irrational, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 38. It is well settled that in the matter of selection and appointment etc. the policy decisions can be taken by the State and the same are not lightly to be interfered by the Court in judicial review but if such policy decision is ex facie irrational, illogical and arbitrary, it can be axed by the Courts while going for judicial review. The respondents in the absence of the counter affidavit had the opportunity to show deliberation available on record, if any, made while formulating the above policy to show justification or rationality for restricting a candidate in applying in only five districts but that option has not been availed by the respondents though they have opportunity to do so. No such request was made. It appears that on this aspect there is not even deliberation on the part of the respondents. In a sheer momentary flash this condition has been made part of the process of selection without applying mind to its logic and rationality. It is also not discernible as to whether any rational object the respondents intent to achieve by making this restriction. The said condition also fails ex facie to show any nexus with the undisclosed objectives sought to be achieved. It is well settled that any policy decision, which is ex facie arbitrary, irrational or illogical is vilative of Article 14 and cannot sustain.
    39. I need not burden this judment with catena of authorities on this aspect since the law is now well settled. The aforesaid condition, therefore, is difficult to sustain and has to be struck down accordingly.
    40. Sri Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to para 10 of the advertisement which provides that those candidates who shall successfully complete training of six months, be appointed on substantive basis on the post of teacher following the procedure prescribed in Rules 1981, as amended by 12th amendment of 2011. To my mind, para 12 of the advertisement nowhere contemplate or empower respondents in issuing straightway, appointment letter as soon as a candidate complete special training of six months but makes it very clear that Rules 1981 thereafter shall be followed for making substantive appointment which include within itself the procedure prescribed in Rule 14(1) of Rules 1981. On a query made, Sri Kushwaha stated as per his instructions no further advertisement as contemplated in Rule 14(1) of Rules 1981 is contemplated and appointments shall be made straightway by issuing letter of appointment by competent appointing authority i.e. District Basic Education Officer. I do not find any reason to go by the above statement made on behalf of the respondents and instead find it sufficient to make it clear and beyond doubt that respondents before issuing letters of appointment, appointing any person as teacher in a Primary School, shall without fail, observe and follow strictly procedure prescribed in Rules 1981 including that of Rule 14(1) so long it continue to operate, and only thereafter appointment shall be made and not otherwise. It is worthy to notice at this stage that repeatedly this Court has observed that an appointment to the post of teacher in a Primary School cannot be made without observing the procedure laid down in Rules 1981.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 41. The writ petition, in view of the above discussion, succeed and is allowed. The impugned advertisement dated 30.11.2011 in so far it restricts a candidate in submitting application only for five districts is hereby quashed.
    42. Since as a result of quashing of the aforesaid condition, the candidates have necessarily to be given opportunity to make/submit applications for various districts, the respondents shall issue a fresh advertisement consistent with the directions as above. It is also and further directed that after completion of special training of six months, no appointment on the post of teacher in Primary Schools governed by Rules 1981 shall be made without following the procedure prescribed therein including rule 14(1) as amended from time to time so long it is operating.
    43. The Court finds that due to unmindful acts of the respondents, the candidates like petitioners aspiring for appointment in primary schools in large number are running from pillar to post and hence harassed. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs.10,000/-.
    Order Date :- 12.12.2011
    KA/Akn

    ReplyDelete
  28. jo log high court ka judgment padna chahte hai uppar padh kar tassali kar sakte hain

    ReplyDelete
  29. ARE ORDER TO PAD LIYA, AAGE KI KYA KAHANI HAI, KYA HOGA? KAB HOGA? KAISE HOGA? .......... AGAR KUCH NAYA HO TO USE BHI BATATE JAO.......... WARNA TET KI MEHNAT BEKAR HOTI DIKH RAHI HAI..........

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doston kya aur zilo se apply karna shuru kar du ? iske liye kya purana forn chalega ya naya download karna padega aur kahan se download hoga ?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Doston kya aur zilo se apply karna shuru kar du ? iske liye kya purana form chalega ya naya download karna padega aur kahan se download hoga ?

    ReplyDelete
  32. sri maan arakshit varg se hamara vinamra nivedan hai ki vah bharat sarkar se anurodh kare ki samanya varg se jeene ka adhikar bhi chheen liya jaye,jisse unki naukari lag jaye
    BHARAT MAHAN HAI

    ReplyDelete
  33. sri maan arakshit varg se hamara vinamra nivedan hai ki vah bharat sarkar se anurodh kare ki samanya varg se jeene ka adhikar bhi chheen liya jaye,jisse unki naukari lag jaye
    BHARAT MAHAN HAI

    ReplyDelete
  34. tet result phir se update hua...jugad lagao...number pao...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aaz court ka decision kya rahega?aur ye kab tak aa jayega?plzz tell something muskan ji

    ReplyDelete
  36. fir se update hua to shor kyu kar rahe ho wo koi ammendment nahi hai itna to common sense use kar lo. pehle se bata diya gaya tha ye un logo ki marksheet hai jinke fathers name ya no. ya marksheet aadhure aa rahe the net par. tum log to til ka taad bana dete ho. jo sahi ho raha hai atleast use to galat saabit mat karo. ha galat ho raha hai us par jarur bolo. jo sarita shukla ne kiya wo galat tha.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kya uptet ki councelling 23/24 dec ko hogi agar kisi ko isk bare me koi jankari ho to pls jankari dijiye thanks

    ReplyDelete
  38. Aaz jo decision aana tha aa gaya hoga.kya huaa koi bata sakta hai??

    ReplyDelete
  39. Naya advertisement aa gaya kya?

    ReplyDelete
  40. High Court ke addesh ke baad ab aage kya hoga any on eknow?

    ReplyDelete
  41. naya advertisement kisi ko mila kya batana yaro

    ReplyDelete
  42. naye uptet result me 87 no pane wale ne saikada par kiya 109

    ReplyDelete
  43. mujhe to lagta hai hame bhi u.p.board me ek application de deni chahiye kyoki jin logo ne application diya un sabhi ke number badhe hai
    mai bhi apne no.se santust nahi hu..kyoki kuch ans abhi bhi galat hai

    ReplyDelete
  44. Muskan ji please uptet se related kuch update dijiye...ab tension badh rahi hai

    ReplyDelete
  45. इस वास्तविक निर्णय है .. बाकी की कहानी है




    41. The writ petition, in view of the above discussion, succeed and is allowed. The impugned advertisement dated 30.11.2011 in so far it restricts a candidate in submitting application only for five districts is hereby quashed.
    42. Since as a result of quashing of the aforesaid condition, the candidates have necessarily to be given opportunity to make/submit applications for various districts, the respondents shall issue a fresh advertisement consistent with the directions as above. It is also and further directed that after completion of special training of six months, no appointment on the post of teacher in Primary Schools governed by Rules 1981 shall be made without following the procedure prescribed therein including rule 14(1) as amended from time to time so long it is operating.
    43. The Court finds that due to unmindful acts of the respondents, the candidates like petitioners aspiring for appointment in primary schools in large number are running from pillar to post and hence harassed. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs.10,000/-.
    Order Date :- 12.12.2011
    KA/Akn


    41.रिट याचिका, ऊपर चर्चा के दृश्य में सफल है, और अनुमति दी.Impugned में 2011/11/30 इतनी दूर दिनांक विज्ञापन केवल पांच जिलों के लिए आवेदन जमा करने में एक उम्मीदवार प्रतिबंधित इसके द्वारा खारिज.
    42. पूर्वोक्त हालत के अभिखण्डन का एक परिणाम के के रूप में के बाद से, उम्मीदवारों के लिए / विभिन्न जिलों के लिए आवेदन प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर दिया जाना जरूरी है, उत्तरदाताओं एक ताजा इसके बाद के संस्करण के रूप में निर्देशों के अनुरूप विज्ञापन जारी करेगा. यह भी है और आगे निर्देश दिया कि छह महीने का विशेष प्रशिक्षण, 1981 नियम द्वारा संचालित प्राथमिक स्कूलों में शिक्षक के पद पर कोई नियुक्ति के पूरा होने के बाद 14 नियम (1) सहित उसमें विहित प्रक्रिया के लिए समय से के रूप में संशोधन के बिना किया जाएगा समय इतने लंबे समय काम कर रहा है.
    43. न्यायालय पाता है कि उत्तरदाताओं से बेखबर कृत्यों के कारण बड़ी संख्या में प्राथमिक स्कूलों में नियुक्ति के लिए इच्छुक याचिकाकर्ताओं की तरह उम्मीदवारों पोस्ट स्तंभ से चल रहे हैं और इसलिए परेशान. इसलिए, याचिकाकर्ताओं को भी लागत के हकदार हैं जो 10 रुपये, 000 / मात्रा है -.
    आदेश दिनांक: 2011/12/12
    / के.ए. AKN

    ReplyDelete
  46. Muskan ji aakhir kuchh to batao ki kya huaa aaz court case mein?kya decision huaa??mera to sir fat jayega tension ke maare....

    ReplyDelete
  47. SABHI B.ED. BEROJGARO KO SALAH-
    aap sabhi ko salah di jati hai ki aap apni b.ed. Aur tet ki degrees par bhelpuri rakhkar maje se kha sakte hain kyuki unka upyog isse achchhe karya ke liye sambhav nahi hai...aur ye sab aap logo ka hi kiya dhara hai jo aaz ham sabko mil raha hai....arey ye maya hai maya ki.....aur vote do maya ko aur govt. Banva do.....pade likhe hokar bhi bewkoof ho....sab court case maya ki maya hain.......

    ReplyDelete
  48. Muskan ji r u there?plz tell smthing new about court decision.....

    ReplyDelete
  49. What is address of GautamBudhh Nagar DIET?

    I am facing lot more problem when trying speed post of my form. Postoffices are not able to find the pin code.

    Please share adress with Pincode and phone if any.
    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ab hame aage kya karna hai koi to bataye

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ASHEESH

    its in DANKAUR GUATAM BUDH NAGAR


    write ADDRESS
    PRINCIPAL
    D.I.E.T.
    DANKAUR (u write in hindi also)
    GAUTAM BUDHNAGAR

    and mention PIN CODE of NOIDA i.e. headquarter of GB nagar
    201301
    Noida
    Gautam Buddha Nagar
    Uttar Pradesh

    speed post is available here

    ReplyDelete
  52. ashish ji gautambudhnagar deit abhi muzaffarnagar me hi hai, wo hi adres chalega

    ReplyDelete
  53. SARITA SHUKLA DWARA KI GAI BATMIJI KE KARAN SABHI 2.70 KA BHAVISHYA KHARAB HONE KE KARIB DIKH RAHA HAI....... AUR YADI AISA HUWA TO KYA LOGE IN BEHUDO KO CHHODEGE? PLZ INFORM IF THERE IS ANY NEWS RELATING NEW ADVERTIESMENT..............

    ReplyDelete
  54. kitne student ne uptet mai 100 se upper marks paye hai plss bataoooo..............

    ReplyDelete
  55. kitne student ne uptet mai 100 se upper marks paye hai plss bataoooo..............

    ReplyDelete
  56. agar aapne paye hain to samjho ki sabhi ne paye hain

    ReplyDelete
  57. meri har un students se request hai jo pass hai,plzzzz agar hamare favour me kuch na hua to hum bhi appeal karenge court jaenge....hum chup kyo rahe????humne kya galti ki....

    ReplyDelete
  58. meri har un students se request hai jo pass hai,plzzzz agar hamare favour me kuch na hua to hum bhi appeal karenge court jaenge....hum chup kyo rahe????humne kya galti ki...



    .

    ReplyDelete
  59. are yaaro ye saab tum logo se paisa kamane ka tarika hai dekho tet exam se 150 karod kamaya aab aap sabhi dist mai apply karoge or har jagha fees doge to dekho 1 applicant kitne paise dega ye sab kannojiya g ki chal hai pisa aise hi nahi kamaya jata kyoki abhi world bank kaa paisa bhi kaam aa raha hai to kahi se to aana chiye

    ReplyDelete
  60. sandy kya noida mai DIET hai kyoki ye pehle ghaziabad mai aata tha or DIET hapur mai tha aap logo ko pata hai abhi tak to sarkar ke pass DIET mai bhi poora staff nahi hai bass jugad kiya hai

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ravindar G vigyapan jaroor niklega kyoki abhi kanojiya sahab ki jai khali hai /sarkari office mai abhi tak ye to pata nahi hai ki TET NCRTE ne lagu kiya ya NCTE nai
    ye Mukhiyamantri ke awas par rehne wale jo PA hai ye unka haal hai or UP basic education office ka haal hai director tak ko yaha pata nahi hota usne kya adesh diya hai .yaha sarkar moukhik chalti hai papwr work nahi karte kyoki paper par likhne se khaye hua paisa dikh jayega ye up ghotala hai jab teacher ban jaoge pata chal jayega yaha uppar wale log kaise khate hai

    ReplyDelete

Please do not use abusive/gali comment to hurt anybody OR to any authority. You can use moderated way to express your openion/anger. Express your views Intelligenly, So that Other can take it Seriously.
कृपया ध्यान रखें: अपनी राय देते समय अभद्र शब्द या भाषा का प्रयोग न करें। अभद्र शब्दों या भाषा का इस्तेमाल आपको इस साइट पर राय देने से प्रतिबंधित किए जाने का कारण बन सकता है। टिप्पणी लेखक का व्यक्तिगत विचार है और इसका संपादकीय नीति से कोई संबंध नहीं है। प्रासंगिक टिप्पणियां प्रकाशित की जाएंगी।