Uttrakhand TET, UTET :उलझ न जाए गुरुजी बनने का सपना
शिक्षकों के 1880 पदों की भर्ती पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक
शिक्षकों के 1880 पदों की भर्ती पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक
राज्य सरकार तलब
•न्यायालय ने सरकार से मांगा है जवाब
•विरोध में कुल 29 याचिकाएं हैं दाखिल
•न्यायालय में तीन हफ्ते में दाखिल करना है जवाब
भर्ती प्रक्रिया अभी लटकी तो फिर पंचायत चुनाव की आचार संहिता लग जाएगी। प्रक्रिया पर लगातार हाईकोर्ट में अलग-अलग याचिकाएं दायर की जा रही हैं। ऐसे में हजाराें युवाओं का सपना अधूरा रह सकता है।
-अमित कश्यप, प्रदेस सचिव, बीएड टीईटी प्रशिक्षित महासंघ
देहरादून। प्रदेश के प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों के 1880 पदों पर गुरुजी बनने का हजारों युवाओं का कानूनी दांव पेच में उलझ सकता है। हाईकोर्ट ने भर्ती प्रक्रिया पर रोक लगाकर प्रदेश सरकार से तीन सप्ताह में जवाब मांगा है।
दिक्कत यह है कि प्रक्रिया के विरोध में हाईकोर्ट में एक-दो नहीं, 29 याचिकाएं दायर की गई हैं। ऐसे में इन सबके निस्तारण में लंबा समय लगना तय है।
प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती शुरू से ही विवादों में रही है। नियमानुसार टीईटी में पास होने के लिए पिछड़ा वर्ग के अभ्यर्थी के न्यूनतम अंक 75 जबकि सामान्य के 90 होने चाहिए। प्रदेश सरकार ने उत्तरकाशी के चिन्यालीसौड़, डुंडा और भटवाड़ी ब्लाक को इसी वर्ष पिछड़ा क्षेत्र घोषित किया है। ऐसे में यहां के सामान्य अभ्यर्थी भी 75 अंकों पर पास मानने की मांग कर रहे हैं।
दूसरी ओर, बैकलॉग के पदों पर भी विवाद है।
कुछ युवाओं ने भर्ती में बैकलॉग को शामिल करने की मांग की है। लेकिन दूसरी ओर, युवाओं का कहना है कि अगर बैकलॉग के पद अलग से जोड़े जाएं तो दिक्कत नहीं है। लेकिन अगर सामान्य पदों में ही कटौती कर बैकलॉग शामिल किया गया तो वे भी कोर्ट चले जाएंगे। कुल मिलाकर पूरी प्रक्रिया पर अभी लंबा कानूनी झगड़ा जारी रहने की आशंका है।
News Source / Sabhaar : अमर उजाला (24.04.2014)
अगर यहाँ पर आपको कभी मेरी कोई बात समझ मेँ न आ रही हो तो
ReplyDelete.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
तो यह तुरंत समझ लेना चाहिये कि बात बडे स्तर की चल रही है ।
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteबस्तियों को अँगार से झुलसाने का हुनर रखने
ReplyDeleteवालों
एक चिंगारी इधर भी ऊछालो कई दिनों से चूल्हे नहीं जले
घर के
!
ReplyDelete!
!
!
!
!
सु
!
नो
!
!
!
स
!
ज
!
नी
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
प्यार की पूजा वही कर सकते हैं,
जिनको रिश्तों का सम्मान करना आता हो.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteसाथियोँ नमस्कार ।
ReplyDeleteशासन की ओर से कल हमारी नियुक्ति से जुड़े
सभी तथ्योँ को उपयुक्त ढंग से जिम्मेदार
लोगोँ के सामने रखा गया । इसी के साथ
पूर्व प्रेषित एक -एक आवेदनोँ के संगत
आँकड़ोँ की समुचित देखभाल सुनिश्चित किये
जाने के आदेश भी दिये गये हैँ ।
72825 शिक्षकोँ की भर्ती मामले मेँ कल
एससीईआरटी निदेशक सहित शासन से जुड़े
सभी अधिकारीगण प्रदेश के बेसिक शिक्षा के
सभी जिला प्रतिनिधियोँ से रूबरू हुए हैँ ।
आधिकारिक स्तर कल सम्पन्न कांन्फ्रेँसिँग मेँ
हमारी भर्ती के संदर्भ मेँ कुछ महत्वपूर्ण
निर्णँय लिये गये हैँ । शासन ने
पूर्व विज्ञापन की सभी सूचनाओँ से जुड़े
इंट्री रजिस्टर को तत्काल प्रभाव से लखनऊ
तलब किया है ता की उसमेँ किसी प्रकार की कूट
रचना न होने पाये ।
एक अन्य फैँसले के तहत सारे
आवेदनोँ की स्कैनिँग और उन्हेँ आन लाइन किये
जाने की समय सीमा न्यूतम रूप से दस दिन तय
कर दी गयी है ।
आवेदन शुल्क वापस ले चुके लोग
या बिना आवेदन किये ही जिन लोगोँ के ड्राफ्ट
वापस आ गये थे उनसे प्रत्यावेदन लेकर उनके
अभ्यर्थन को अद्यतन किया जायेगा ऐसे
लोगोँ की सूची अलग से तैयार
की जा रही है उन लोगो से काउंसिँलिँग के समय
500 रुपये लिये जाने पर विचार किया जा रहा है
। काउंसिँलिँग बीएड के सादृश्य होगी एक ही बार
मेँ सारे विकल्प लिये जायेँगे एवं
जिलोँ का आवंटना टेट अंको के मेधाक्रम मेँ
किया जायेगा ।
प्रकृति दुःख -सुख की समष्टि है साथियोँ सारी दुश्चिँता छोड़कर अब तो इत्मेनान करेँ ।
शिक्षक भर्ती में आवेदनों की नई फीडिंग पर रोक
ReplyDeleteप्रशिक्षु शिक्षक भर्ती-2011 का मामला
लखनऊ (डीएनएन)। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्देश पर नवंबर-2011 के विज्ञापन के आधार पर शुरू हुई 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती में फर्जीवाड़ा रोकने के लिए कम्प्यूटर पर आवेदनों की नई फीडिंग पर रोक लगा दी गई है। साथ ही जिन अभ्यर्थियों ने अपने ड्राफ्ट वापस ले लिए थे उनसे वापस नहीं जमा कराया जाएगा। इसके आलवा कोई भी नए आवेदन भी नहीं लिए जाएंगे। यह निर्देश गुरुवार को वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग के जरिए सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा नीतीश्वर कुमार ने बीएसए व डायट प्राचार्यो को दिए।
चुनाव आयोग की अनुमति के बाद हुई वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग में शामिल होने के लिए सभी बीएसए व डायट प्रचार्यो को जनपद के एनआईसी केंद्र पर उपस्थित होने के निर्देश दिए गए थे। सूत्रों के अनुसार वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग के जरिए सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा ने प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक-2011 के अंतर्गत जनपद में आए कुल आवेदनों की संख्या, डायट स्तर पर फीडिंग और बिना फीडिंग आवेदनों की संख्या आदि की जानकारी ली। उन्होंने निर्देश दिए कि 2011 में जितने भी आवेदन आए थे उनमें से जितनी फीडिंग कम्प्यूटर में हो गई है, उसके बाद कोई नई फीडिंग नहीं की जाएगी। साथ ही जितने आवेदनों की फीडिंग कम्प्यूटर पर हो गई थी, यदि उनकी स्कैनिंग नहीं हुई थी तो उसे किया जा सकता है। सचिव ने निर्देश दिए कि आवेदन के समय रजिस्टर पर जितने भी आवेदन चढ़ाए गए थे उसके आखिरी पन्ने पर बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी व जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों के प्राचार्य हस्ताक्षर करके वह पेज भेजें। अब भर्ती के लिए कोई भी नया आवेदन नहीं लिया जाएगा।
दस दिनों में स्कैनिंग पूरी करने के निर्देश
ReplyDeleteइलाहाबाद। परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 72825 सहायक अध्यापक पदों पर भर्ती टीईटी की मेरिट से करने के सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश के बाद भर्ती को लेकर शासन स्तर पर तैयारियां तेज हो गई हैं। बेसिक शिक्षा सचिव नीतिश्वर कुमार, एससीईआरटी निदेशक सवेंद्र विक्रम बहादुर सिंह, विशेष सचिव अमरनाथ और बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशक दिनेश बाबू शर्मा ने प्रदेश के सभी डायट प्राचार्यों और बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारियों के साथ वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग की। डायट प्राचार्यों को निर्देश दिए गए कि दस दिनों के अंदर 2011 की भर्ती के लिए आए हुए आवेदनों की स्कैनिंग का काम पूरा किया जाए। स्कैनिंग के दौरान हर स्तर पर पारदर्शिता रखी जाए।
सख्त निर्देश दिए गए कि बैक एंट्री न की जाए। ऐसे आवेदक जिनके आवेदन शुल्क बैंक ड्राफ्ट के माध्यम से वापस दे दिए गए हैं। उनके शुल्क को डायट में वापस करने पर स्वीकार न किया जाए। निर्धारित तिथि के बाद आए आवेदनों को अलग कर दिया जाए।
दस दिनों में आवेदनों की स्कैनिंग के बाद इसकी रिपोर्ट भेजने के बाद भर्ती के संबंध में आगे निर्देश दिए जाएंगे। वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग में इलाहाबाद से बीएसए राजकुमार और डायट प्राचार्य के प्रतिनिधि के रूप में गोविंद राम शामिल हुए।
72825 पदों पर भर्ती का मामला डायट प्राचार्यों से ली गई जानकारी
Jo avedn us wqt computer me feed nhi hue honge unhe feed krne se to mna kr dia gya hai.To kya unhi forms ko scan kia jaega bcz agwo forms scan bhi na hue to kafi log rh jaenge.Kya pta hmari isthithi kya hai mere forms hr diets pr feed hue ya kahin baki rh gae ho.Fees wapasi k lie khali envelop mngaya tha diet walo ne bheja to tha bt draft to waps nhi aya tha.
ReplyDeleteछह लाख आवेदन पत्रों की नहींहो सकी इंट्रीलखनऊ (एसएनबी)। परिषदीय स्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापक पद की भर्ती के लिए वर्ष 2011 में आमंत्रित आवेदन पत्रों में छह लाख की फीडिंगनहीं हो सकी है। इनमें प्रतापगढ़ व भदोही जिले सबसे फिसड्डी हैं, जहां इस काम को शुरू ही नहीं किया गया। योजना भवन में वीडियो कांफ्रेसिंग से की गयी समीक्षा में सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा ने इस सुस्ती के लिए आधा दर्जन जिलों के डायट प्राचायरे को फटकार लगायी। उन्हें आवेदन पत्रों की इंट्री का काम जल्द पूरा कराने का निर्देश दिया गया है। इसके बाद विभाग 72825 शिक्षकों की टीईटी मेरिट से भर्ती की प्रक्रिया पर आगे बढ़ सकेगा। प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक भर्ती-2011 के लिए करीब 68 लाख लोगों ने आवेदन किया था।दो वर्ष से ज्यादा समय बीत जाने के बाद भी फार्म की इंट्री का काम पूरा नहीं हो सका है। वीडियो कांफ्रेसिंगके दौरान सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा नीतीश्वर कुमार, विशेष सचिव विवेक वाष्ण्रेय, निदेशक बेसिक शिक्षा दिनेश बाबू शर्मा, राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद के निदेशक सव्रेन्द्रविक्रम बहादुर सिंह के साथ एनआईसी के अधिकारी मौजूद थे।
ReplyDeleteडायट प्राचार्य व जिलों के बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारियोंको 12 बिन्दुओं पर सूचना लेकर आने के निर्देश थे, लेकिन कई अधिकारी अपडेट सूचना के साथ नहीं आये थे। इसको लेकर सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा ने नाराजगी जतायी। करीब एक दर्जन जिलों में फार्म के डाटा इंट्री का कामसुस्त है। इनमें एटा जिला भीशामिल है। सूत्रों का कहना है कि एक-एक आवेदक ने 40-40 जिलों में आवेदन किया है, कुछ 30 जिलों वाले आवेदक हैं, 20 जिलों में आवेदन वाले अभ्यर्थियों की तादाद काफी ज्यादा है। सूत्रों का कहना है कि आवेदन शुल्क वापसले चुके अभ्यर्थियों को चयन प्रक्रिया का हिस्सा नहीं बनने दिया जाएगा।
ReplyDeleteकपिलदेव को टेट मेरिट से भर्ती शुरू होने की ख़ुशी में गधा गिफ्ट
ReplyDeleteकरना है समझ में नहीं आ रहा कि गधे के नाम पर चंदे
की वसूली के लिए किसका ac no दिया जाए ..... आप ही कुछ
सुझाव दो ...
एक काम से मुक्ति मिल गई,,इच्छा मृत्यु वाले मिसुर की अंतिम
इच्छा तो पूछने की जरूरत ही नहीं क्योंकि उस बदनसीब की अंतिम
इच्छा तो मृत्यु का वरण ही है ,,,
DOSTO MAIN JYADA JANKAR NAHI HUN OR NA HI JUDGE OR VAKIL HUN 2.5 SAAL SE U.P. SARKAR HAME PRT BHARTI SE DOOR RAKHE HAI .AISE MAIN HAMARE KUCHH T.E.T. BHAIYO KA ATMVISWAS KAMJOR SA HO GAYA HAI. MAIN APNE UN BHAIYO SE KEHNA CHAHTA HUN KI CHAHE APNE D.D. LE LIYA HAI. CHAHE AVEDAN KI PHOTO COPY NA HO .OR ANY KARAN KYO NA HO.
ReplyDeleteAP BILKUL PARESHAN NA HO APNE PARIWAR MAIN KHUS HOKAR RAHO BHAIYO JAB BHAGWAN OR COURT OR ITNE T.E.T. BHAI ,BEHAN HAMARE SAATH HAI TO GOV HAMARA KUCHH NAHI BIGAD PAYEGI.
EK BAAT OR AP KISI AISE VYAKTI JO KI T.E.T. PAAS NA HO OR EDUCATED VA PADHE LIKHE HO UNSE KEHNA KI HUM LOG S.C. SE CASE JEET GAYE HAIN KYA HAMARI BHARTI HO SAKTI HAI.
TO UNKA JAVAB HAN MAIN HOGA.
THINK POSITIVE- JAY HIND-JAY T.E.T
jinki fee wapus kar di gayi thi uska faisla shashan karega ki fee kis rup me jama karayi jaye..
ReplyDeletejis se diets par farzi kaam roka jaa sake
फीस वापिसवाले लोग चिंता न करे, उनसे अभी फीस लेने सम्बन्ध में प्रक्रिया स्पष्ट न होने कारणनाए फॉर्म फीडिंग पर रोक लगाई गयी है,जिससे अवैध फार्म शामिल न हो जाये, उनलोगो के आवेदन वापिस नही हुए है, केवलफीस वापिस की गयी, अत: दोबारा आवेदनका कोई मतलब ही नही सिर्फ फीस लेनेकी व्यवस्था की जायेगी,
ReplyDeleteभाई उमाशंकरजी व अन्य कोई भाई जिसे जानकारी हो , कृपया यह बताने का कष्ट करें कि जिनके फार्म की फीडिंग नही हुई है उनका क्या होगा जबकि फीडिंग अधिकारियों की वजह से अधूरी है इसमें अभ्यर्थी का क्या दोष है ?कृपया मार्गदर्शन अवश्य करें ।
ReplyDeleteआज डायट प्राचार्य, SCERT डायरेक्टर एवं बेसिक शिक्षा सचिव की वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग मीटिंग सफल रही ।
ReplyDeleteजिसपर लोगों की तमाम प्रतिक्रियायें सोशल मीडिया पर पढ़ने को मिल रही हैं ।
हमारे जनपद के जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक ही प्रभारी डायट प्राचार्य भी हैं ।
मैं लोगों की प्रतिक्रियाओं में कुछ को बिलकुल सही देख रहा हूँ तथा निष्कर्ष तौर पर कहना चाहता हूँ कि
भर्ती की प्रक्रिया २७ सितम्बर २०११ के शासनादेश के तहत होगी जिसका जिक्र स्पष्ट रूप से कोर्ट ने किया है तथा सक्षम अधिकारी उस आदेश को लेकर संवेदनशील हैं।
फीस वापसी का विवाद समाप्त होगा अर्थात यह समस्या शुल्क प्रत्यावेदन के माध्यम से सुलझायी जायेगी।
इसके अतिरिक्त पुरानी प्रक्रिया के सम्पूर्ण आवेदन ऑनलाइन होंगे तथा जिलास्तरीय चयन व वरीयता सूची जारी की जायेगी ।
दोस्तों जैसा कि सुबह से ही चर्चा का विषय बना हुआ है कि जिसने फीस वापस ले ली है उनका क्या होगा पर सोचने वाली बात यह है कि फीस वापसी का आदेश भी सरकार ने ही दिया था अन्यथा किसी को फीस वापस लेने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं थी ।या फिर ऐसा कह सकते है कि एक बार फीस जमा हो जाने पर फीस वापसी का कोई प्रावधान नहीं होता ।बेचारा बेरोजगार अभ्यर्थी सरकारी मशीनरी के दाव पेच मेफसकर रह गया है ।शायद आप सभी को याद हो २०११ मे एक संशोधित आदेश आया था जिसमें इस बात का उल्लेख किया गया था कि 5जिले के ड्राप मे से केवल मूल जनपद की फीस जमा होगी शेष 4 जिलों की फीस वापस हो जाएगी ।अब आप सभी बताए इसमें दोषी कौन है ।
ReplyDeleteटेट साथियों कल हुई वीडियो कान्फ्रेँसिँग के संबंध मे प्रकाशित खबरों को पढ़कर उन लोगों की हालत पतली हो गई है जिन्होंने टेट मोर्चा का विरोध / असहयोग करने के लिए अपनी फीस वापस माँगकर 72825 शिक्षक भर्ती से अपना विधिक अभ्यर्थन निरस्त करवा लिया था । हो सकता है विभाग उनके लिए कानून की धज्जियाँ उङाकर कोई रास्ता निकाल ले मगरआज उनके चेहरों पर पश्चाताप की झलक साफ देखी जा सकती है । ऐसे महाशय हमे हराने के लिए खुद का विनाश कर बैठे ? हमारा शगुन बिगाड़ने के लिए अपनी आँख ही फोड़ बैठे ? फिलहाल मुझे व्यक्तिगत रूप से उनमे से किसी से कोई शिकायत नही है । उन्हे उनके किए का फल मिल चुका है । मै तो ईश्वर से यही दुआ करूँगा कि विभाग उनके लिए कोई रास्ता निकाल ले और कोई उस रास्ते के खिलाफ कोर्ट न जाए अन्यथा वह कहीं के नही रहेंगे । दो नावोँ की सवारी करना हमेशा ही भारी पड़ता रहा है इस बार क्या होगा देखना बाकी है ।
ReplyDeleteज्यादा जानकारी के लिए फीस वापसी वाले प्रपत्र का प्रारूप/ घोषणा देखें
ReplyDeleteमेरे पीठ पर जो जख्म है वो अपनों की निशानी हैं...
ReplyDelete!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
वर्ना सीना तो आज भी दुश्मनो के इंतजार मे बैठा है...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteछह लाख आवेदन पत्रों की नहीं हो सकी इंट्री लखनऊ (एसएनबी)। परिषदीय स्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापक पद की भर्ती के लिए वर्ष 2011 में आमंत्रित आवेदन पत्रों में छह लाख की फीडिंग नहीं हो सकी है। इनमें प्रतापगढ़ व भदोही जिले सबसे फिसड्डी हैं, जहां इस काम को शुरू ही नहीं किया गया। योजना भवन में वीडियो कांफ्रेसिंग से की गयी समीक्षा में सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा ने इस सुस्ती के लिए आधा दर्जन जिलों के डायट प्राचायरे को फटकार लगायी। उन्हें आवेदन पत्रों की इंट्री का काम जल्द पूरा कराने का निर्देश दिया गया है। इसके बाद विभाग 72825 शिक्षकों की टीईटी मेरिट से भर्ती की प्रक्रिया पर आगे बढ़ सकेगा। प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक भर्ती-2011 के लिए करीब 68 लाख लोगों ने आवेदन किया था। दो वर्ष से ज्यादा समय बीत जाने के बाद भी फार्म की इंट्री का काम पूरा नहीं हो सका है। वीडियो कांफ्रेसिंग के दौरान सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा नीतीश्वर कुमार, विशेष सचिव विवेक वाष्ण्रेय, निदेशक बेसिक शिक्षा दिनेश बाबू शर्मा, राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद के निदेशक सव्रेन्द्र विक्रम बहादुर सिंह के साथ एनआईसी के अधिकारी मौजूद थे। डायट प्राचार्य व जिलों के बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारियों को 12 बिन्दुओं पर सूचना लेकर आने के निर्देश थे, लेकिन कई अधिकारी अपडेट सूचना के साथ नहीं आये थे। इसको लेकर सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा ने नाराजगी जतायी। करीब एक दर्जन जिलों में फार्म के डाटा इंट्री का काम सुस्त है। इनमें एटा जिला भी शामिल है। सूत्रों का कहना है कि एक- एक आवेदक ने 40-40 जिलों में आवेदन किया है, कुछ 30 जिलों वाले आवेदक हैं, 20 जिलों में आवेदन वाले अभ्यर्थियों की तादाद काफी ज्यादा है। 72825 शिक्षकों के भर्ती मामले में आधा दर्जन डायट प्राचायरे को फटकार
ReplyDeleteमैं किसी अनुमान के आधार पर यह पोस्ट
ReplyDeleteनहीं डाल रहा हूँ। अभी तक प्राप्त जानकारी के
आधार पर यह पोस्ट है -
कल मैं मोदी जी के स्वागत में लगा था और इधर
विडियो कांफ्रेन्स के नाम पर अफवाहों का बाजार
गर्म था। इन अफवाहों का शिकार शुल्क
वापसी वाले सबसे अधिक हुए।
मैं पूरी जिम्मेदारी से आप लोगों को आश्वस्त
करना चाहता हूँ आप लोगों के उपर रत्ती मात्र
का भी संकट नहीं है। आपको बुरा भले ही लगे
लेकिन कहूंगा जरूर क्या जरूर थी शुल्क वापसी के
आवेदन की? आप लोगों की उस गलती की वजह
से अभी भर्ती प्रक्रिया में 7 दिन अतिरिक्त
लगेंगे। जितने भी लोगों ने शुल्क
वापसी का आवेदन किया था उनसे काउंसिलिंग के
ही समय DD मंगवाई जायेगी, एक DD
होगी कि एक से अधिक यह सब बाद में
पता चलेगा। लेकिन जब मेरीट लिस्ट
आयेगी तो उसमें सभी का नाम होगा,
सभी का मतलब जिन्होंने शुल्क
वापसी का आवेदन किया था उनका भी जिन्होंने
नहीं किया था उनका भी। किसी के साथ कोई
भेदभाव नहीं किया जाएगा।
दूसरी महत्वपूर्ण बात कपिल और गुड्डू जैसे नर
पिशाच आप लोगों की तरफ गिद्ध की नज़र गड़ाये
हैं सावधान रहियेगा। इन्हीं लोगों के बहकावे में
आकर आप में से कई लोगों ने शुल्क
वापसी का आवेदन किया था और एक बार फिर
ये आप लोगों को बरगला कर
चंदा वसूली का कार्यक्रम बना रहे हैं। एक बात
तो अब कान खोल कर सुन लीजिये इस
भर्ती प्रक्रिया को टेट मेरिट से पूरा होने
को दुनिया की कोई ताकत कोई कोर्ट नहीं रोक
सकती। यह भर्ती 2011 के विज्ञापन पर
अक्षरशः होगी। उसमें किसी प्रकार
का परिवर्तन करने का कोई सपना देख
या दिखा रहा है तो उस प्राणी से
दूरी बना लीजिये क्योंकि या तो उसकी मानसिक
हालत ठीक नहीं है या वो बहुत चालक है जाते
जाते कुछ और कमाई कर लेना चाहता है।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सामने केन्द्र सरकार
पानी भरती है ये सपा की सरकार उसके आगे कुछ
नहीं है।
आज अखिलेश फिर यार गया दरोगा भर्ती मे कोर्ट ने कहा कि पुराने विज्ञापन पर भर्ती करो
ReplyDeleteक्योँकि खेल के नियम खेल के बीच मे नही बदले जा सकते हैं
उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार को हाई कोर्ट का एक और झटका ॥
ReplyDeleteहाई कोर्ट इलाहाबाद की डबल बेँच ने दरोगा भर्ती 2011 को पुराने आवेदन पत्रों के आधार पर पूरी करने के एकल पीठ के आदेश पर मोहर लगाई । अब देखना है कि सरकार अपनी किरकिरी कराने sc जाती है या नही !
be
ReplyDeleteundertaken in six steps namely (1) Physical
Standard Test; (2) Preliminary Written
Examination; (3) Physical Efficiency Test; (4)
Main
Written Examination; (5) Group Discussion and
(6) Medical Examination. The candidates, who
meet the minimum of physical standards could
appear in the preliminary written examination
in
which they were required to secure 50% marks
to be eligible for the next step for physical
efficiency test. Clause 2.6 of the advertisement
provided for the standard of physical
efficiency
test of qualifying nature. The candidates, who
are declared successful in this test, are eligible
to appear in the main written examination.
Clause 2.6 further provided that male
candidates
will be expected to complete 10 kilometres
race
in 60 minutes and female candidates 5
kilometres
race in 35 minutes in accordance with the then
prevailing Rules of 2008. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are
qualifying in nature. The candidates fulfilling
the
prescribed minimum physical standard;
securing
50% marks in the preliminary written
examination and completing the physical
efficiency test, were eligible to appear in the
further steps in the selection.
7. The physical standard test was held and
carried out as per advertisement in September-
October, 2011 after which the preliminary
written test was held on 11.12.2011, in which
approximately 2,70,000 candidates appeared.
The result of the preliminary written test was
declared on 1.1.2013 in which 39,315
candidates
qualified to appear in the next qualifying level.
The physical efficiency test was scheduled to
be
held between 5.2.2013 to 22.2.2013.
8. On 18.2.2013 one of the candidates namely
Satendra Kumar Yadav, while appearing in the
physical efficiency test of the run of 10
kilometres, died while running, before
completing the test. The matter was widely
published in media, on which on 20.2.2013 an
order was issued by the Secretary, Government
of UP, to the Chairman of UP Police
Recruitment & Promotion Board directing that
since one of the candidates had died after he
had fallen on the ground, while taking part in
the physical efficiency test, the physical
efficiency test, which is a part of the selection,
is postponed for a period of one month.
9. On a request made by the Chairman, UP
ReplyDeletePolice Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow on 14.3.2012 the Secretary,
Government of UP vide his letter dated
11.4.2013 directed him to complete the
selection
process according to UP Sub Inspector and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service (5th
Amendment)
Rules, 2013 notified on 1.3.2013, for the
remaining candidates, who had not completed
the test or who were declared unsuccessful or
were absent in the physical efficiency test.
Consequently a notice/notification was
published
on 27.6.2013 directing all the candidates, who
had not participated in the physical efficiency
test or who were declared unsuccessful and
were
absent to complete the physical efficiency test.
The notification provided the revised standards
in accordance with the 5th Amendment to the
Rules of 2008, namely that the male candidates
will be required to complete a run of 4.8
kilometres in 35 minutes and the female
candidates a run of 2.4 kilometres in 20
minutes.
10. A Service Single No.91 of 2013 (Kendra
Kunwar vs. State of UP and others) was filed
at
Lucknow Bench of this Court. The petitioner in
the writ petition was declared unsuccessful in
the physical efficiency test. Learned Single
Judge
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that
the petitioner after participating in the
selection
was declared unsuccessful in the preliminary
written test and thus he has no right to
challenge the procedures adopted in the
selection.
11. In another Writ A No. 36383 of 2013
(Rajesh
Kumar vs. State of UP & another) challenging
the notification by which the 5th Amendment
to
the Rules of 2008 was carried out on
27.6.2013
with regard to the standards of physical
efficiency test, learned Single Judge passed
following orders:-
"Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri
C.B. Yadav, Learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents.
Sri Yadav prays for and is granted three weeks
further time to file counter affidavit.
The petitioners in this petition and the
petitioners of the connected writ petitions had
applied for direct recruitment to the post of
Sub-Inspector in accordance with the
advertisement issued in 2011 under the Uttar
Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police)
Service Rules,2008. They were subjected
ReplyDeleteto physical standard test and preliminary
written
test and thereafter in the physical efficiency
test
and all of them cleared the three stages of
recruitment. However, a notification was
issued
on 27.6.2013 amending the rules with regard
to
physical efficiency test which has been
challenged.
The recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector
is
by direct recruitment and from rankers.
It is evident that the recruitment process had
been initiated and it is settled law that once
recruitment process had begun, rules cannot
be
amended so far as that recruitment is
concerned, as rules of the game cannot be
altered midway and the respondents cannot
invoke the power of rule 28 so far as the
direct
recruits are concerned.
Accordingly, the respondents are restrained
from proceeding further on the basis of
altered
physical efficiency criteria. However, it would
be
open for them to carry on that recruitment on
the basis of the old rules or if they are so
advised, the entire recruitment may be
undertaken in accordance with the new criteria
but following the law on the issue.
It is clarified that this interim order does not
relate to promotion of rankers to the post of
Sub-Inspector.
List after three weeks.
Order Date :- 11.7.2013"
12. On 13.7.2013 in compliance with the
interim
order passed by this Court on 11.7.2013 in
Writ
A No.36383 of 2013 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of
UP & another) a decision was taken by the
Chairman of the UP Police Recruitment &
Promotion Board in a meeting in which
Director
General of Civil Police, and the Director
General
of PAC participated, that in view of the
incident
of death in the physical efficiency test and
considering the directions issued by the High
Court, in public interest, the selection
procedure
be started afresh and that the vacancies, which
have arisen upto June, 2015 on account of
promotion/retirement may also be included in
the new notification.
13. In pursuance to the resolution in the
meeting
of the UP Police Recruitment & Promotion
Board, a decision was taken by the State
Government on 3.9.2013 to cancel the entire
proceedings of selection/recruitment initiated
by
the advertisement dated 19.5.2011, and to
start
the selection process afresh including vacancies
ReplyDeleteupto June, 2015.
14. The Writ Petition No.17372 of 2013
connected with Writ Petition No.36383 of
2013
(Rajesh Kumar vs. State of UP & another) was
dismissed as having become infructuous on the
ground that the selections have been cancelled.
The interim order dated 11.7.2013 merged in
the
final order.
15. The State Government has not yet
announced the fresh selections so far. In the
meantime the petitioners, who are respondents
in this Special Appeal filed Writ A No.57576 of
2013 (Vindhyavasini Tiwari and 4 ors vs. State
of
UP & 2 ors); Writ A No.63093 of 2013 (Manjit
Krishna and 16 ors vs. State of UP & 2 ors)
and
Writ A No.60538 of 2013 (Arvind Kumar vs.
State of UP & 2 ors). Learned Single Judge
considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and the effect of the 5th Amendment to
the Rules of 2008 by which the standard of
physical efficiency test were altered and held
that the amendments carried out in the Rules
of
2008, do not show that the amended Rules will
govern the recruitment. The State Government
by Office Memorandum dated 27.6.2013
notified
recommencing of the physical efficiency test
on
7.7.2013, providing that besides remaining
candidates who were yet to participate in the
physical efficiency test in the recruitment
process, even failed candidates and absentees
would be permitted to complete the physical
efficiency test as per amended rules i.e.
reduced
length of run as also altered period within
which
the run had to be completed. While rejecting
the
challenge to the vires of the amendments
made
by the 5th Amendment of 2013 and the 3rd
Amendment Rules of 2013 for recruitment to
Sub Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon
Commander in PAC, he held that in the matter
of recruitment and appointment the
recruitment
procedure as was available on the date of
occurrence of vacancy must be followed to fill
in
the advertised vacancies, unless and until the
changed procedure or alteration or
amendment
in the rules has been specifically made
retrospective, so as to govern the on going
recruitment. When a vacancy occurs the
general
principle is that it must be filled in according
to
the procedures applicable at the time when the
vacancy occurred.
16. Learned Single Judg
relied on Y.V.
ReplyDeleteRangaiah
and ors vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and ors AIR 1983
SC 852; A.A. Calton vs. the Director of
Education and another AIR 1983 SC 1143; P.
Ganeshwar Rao and others vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others AIR 1988 SC 2068; B.L.
Gupta and another vs. M.C.D., 1998 (9) SCC
223; State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal 1997 (10)
SCC 419; Arjun Singh Rathore and ors vs. B.N.
Chaturvedi and ors (2007) 11 SCC 605; State
of
Punjab and ors vs. Arun Kumar Aggarwal and
ors 2007 (5) SLR 237 and a Division Bench
judgment of this Court, which has followed the
aforesaid decisions, in which it was held that
the
vacancies existing in 2011 in respect whereof
the
advertisement was published on 19.5.2011,
deserved to be dealt with in accordance with
rules as applicable at that time. The subsequent
prospective amendments would not govern the
selections. The selections for the vacancies,
which have arisen after 2011 may be made in
accordance with the rules as amended by 5th
Amendment to the rules in the year 2013 and
the 3rd Amendment to the rules applicable to
PAC in the same year of 2013.
17. On the second issue as to whether the
competent authority can cancel a recruitment
process at any stage unless the decision taken
is
non-arbitrary and for valid reasons, learned
Single Judge held that the only reason
assigned
in the case is that of interim order dated
11.7.2013 passed in the Writ Petition
No.36383
of 2013 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of UP & ors).
The decision, when analysed in depth would
show that the respondents have completely
misdirected themselves. They have misread the
interim order dated 11.7.2013 in which learned
Single Judge added the words "but following
law
on the issue". The respondents did not look
into
nor considered whether it was permissible in
law
to continue with the recruitment under the old
rules, and decided to cancel the entire
selections. The decision was not an informed
and
reasoned decision. He further held that since
the
interim order gets merged into final order, the
decision taken in pursuance to the interim
order
cannot be accepted.
18. Learned Single Judge also considered the
public interest involved, and held that since
admittedly more than 39,000 candidates had
participated
in physical efficiency test, which is
ReplyDeletethe third stage of recruitment; and in which
number of candidates proved their physical
efficiency by completing rigorous running test
of 10 kilometres for male candidates and 5
kilometres for female candidates successfully
as
per the old rules, the candidates who have
failed
had no justification to request for appearing in
the re-test; and similarly there was no
justification for the candidates, who had failed
or had absented in the test to participate in
the
process.
19. Learned Single Judge thereafter held that
those candidates, who have been selected
through more rigorous test would be more
useful for police force than those who would
be
selected after reduced standards. In para 57 of
the judgement learned Single Judge held as
follows:-
"57. Be that as it may, the candidates selected
through more rigorous test would be more
useful for police force than those who would
be
selected after reduced standard. It goes
beyond
comprehension of any person of ordinary
prudence how recruitment made with rigorous
test, particularly, when the matter relates to
uniform force like police, directly responsible
besides other for maintenance of public law
and
order etc., would be less in public interest than
having persons recruited with relaxed or
reduced
standard."
20. Learned Single Judge for the aforesaid
reasons held that the decision taken by the
State
Government to cancel the selection process
and
to re-start the process afresh was entirely
arbitrary and against public interest. The
argument, that the rigours of the physical
efficiency test, were relaxed to save the life of
young candidates, was not accepted. He held
that the recruitment in question pertains to
police force which must answer the best
standards of physical strength, endurance,
stress, efficiency etc which must be quite
higher
than the average common man otherwise the
members of police force may not be able to
perform the kind of job they are supposed to.
The job of a police officer requires courage,
valiant, persistent onerous physical stressed
duties etc., and therefore, harder standards
are
needed. These standards have continued for
decades together and have stood the test of
time.
A large number of candidates have
ReplyDeletesuccessfully achieved the requisite physical test
and when such standards were actually met by
large number of candidates, a single
unfortunate
incident could not be a ground to cancel the
selections.
21. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the
State appellants submits that the State
Government is competent to frame rules or to
make any amendments in the rules. The 5th
Amendment to the rules made in the year 2013
revising the standard of physical efficiency test
was not challenged. The State Government did
not act arbitrarily in cancelling the selections
and
to re-advertise the recruitment under the
amended Rules. The arbitrariness or
unreasonableness by itself was not a ground
to
challenge the decision of the State
Government
to cancel the selections. He submits that where
the State Government was satisfied that the
operation of any rule regulating the conditions
of service of persons appointed to service will
cause undue hardship in any particular case, it
may, notwithstandinganything contained in
the
rules applicable to the case, by order, dispense
with or relax the requirements of that rule to
such extent and subject to such conditions as
it
may consider necessary for dealing with the
cases in just and equitable manner.
22. Learned Standing Counsel further submits
that the decision of the State Government to
cancel the selection process is based on the
subjective satisfaction, that it will cause undue
hardship in selection process, where a
candidate
had died. The relaxation was made in public
interest without wasting any time.
23. It is submitted on behalf of State
appellants
that in the selection process no candidate has
acquired any vested right against the State
Government, even if his name is included in the
select list. No right had accrued to the
petitioners in the selection process to be
enforced by the Court. The State Government
had a right to withdraw the notification and to
start the process of recruitment afresh under
the amended rules. Learned Single Judge has
not
considered the facts and circumstances in its
correct perspective and that in the selection
process the human approach should not be
lost
There has been considerable delay in selections
ReplyDeleteand that considering the shortage of police
officers at the entry level it is necessary to
hold
selections afresh. He has relied on State of
M.P.
And others vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and
others (1994) 6 SCC 151 (paras 5 and 6), in
which it was held:-
"5.It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have
been made introducing Degree in Science or
Engineering or Diploma in Technology as
qualifications for recruitment to the posts of
Inspector of Weights and Measures. It is
settled
law that the State has got power to prescribe
qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case
that pursuant to amended Rules, the
Government has withdrawn the earlier
notification and wants to proceed with the
recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any
accrued right. The candidates who had
appeared
for the examination and passed the written
examination had only legitimate expectation to
be considered of their claims according to the
rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have
only prospective operation. The Government is
entitled to conduct selection in accordance
with
the changed rules and make final recruitment.
Obviously no candidate acquired any vested
right
against the State. Therefore, the State is
entitled
to withdraw the notification by which it had
previously notified recruitment and to issue
fresh notification in that regard on the basis
of
the amended Rules.
6.The ratio in P Mahendran v. State of
Karnataka1 has no application to the facts in
this
case. In that case, for the posts of Motor
Vehicles Inspector, apart from the
qualifications
prescribed, they issued additional qualifications
and selection was sought to be made on the
basis of additional qualifications.It was held
that since recruitment was sought to be made
on the basis of the qualifications prescribed,
the
additional qualifications prescribed thereafter
have no retrospective effect to the recruitment
already set in motion. Under those
circumstances, additional qualifications were
directed not to be taken into account for
considering the claims of the candidates on
the
basis of the original advertisement. The ratio
therein is clearly inapplicable to the facts in
this
case.
24. Shri Ashok Khare has, on the other hand,
ReplyDeletesupported the reasons given in the judgement.
He submits that the legal position has been
fairly
explained by learned Single Judge namely that
the selection process must be concluded in
accordance with the service rules as are
prevailing on the date of the advertisement.
There were no such circumstances which could
have validly persuaded the State Government
to
cancel the selections. The unfortunate death of
one of the candidate was on account of lack of
medical facilities, that there was nothing in the
interim order passed by learned Single Judge
to
have cancelled the selections. He submits that
the decision was political in nature inasmuch as
in the middle of selection process a new
Government had taken over which did not
want
selection process initiated at the time of old
Government to continue. The decision was
neither informed with relevant material nor
reasonable.
25. Shri Ashok Khare submits that under the
executive instructions prevailing prior to the
enforcement of the Rules of 2008, the run in
the
physical efficiency test had to be completed
almost within the same time. The death of one
of the candidates out of more than 30,000,
who
had participated could not be a ground to
cancel the entire selections as the death could
have taken place in circumstances other than
the
stress of the test. The State Government did
not
take into consideration nor held any enquiries
into the medical condition of the person, who
had died participating in the exercise. He may
have been ill or suffering with any disease or in
a
condition in which he should have been advised
not to take the test. He submits that it is
difficult to comprehend that the standard of
physical efficiency test would be lowered in
case
of selection in Civil Police and PAC where a
higher level of physical efficiency is required
for
the training and in the job, than in any other
service.
26. The legal position that the recruitment in
public service has to be completed in
accordance
with the rules laying down eligibility including
qualification and standard during the test in
accordance with the rules prevailing at the
time
of advertisement is not in any doubt.
Any
ReplyDeleteamendment in the rules mid way changing the
rules of game is not permissible. The
amendments in eligibility and selection process
have to be applied for selections to be held in
future. The change in the rules altering the
conditions of recruitment by prescribing
qualification and standards, which are higher
or
lower, affects the entire selection process and
the right of persons who participate in the
selection process, in violation of guarantee of
equality before law, under Articles 14 and 16
of
Constitution of India.
27. It is not necessary to add to the precedent
of cases referred on by learned Single Judge.
It
is sufficient to state that the legal position has
been further explained and followed by the
Supreme Court in K. Shekar Vs. Indiramma
(2002) 3 SCC 586 (para 23); B. Ramakichennin
Vs. Union of India (2008 (1) SCC 362); K.
Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008)
3
SCC 512 and Hemani Mehrotra Vs. High Court
of
Delhi 2008 (7) SCC 11. An argument in Himani
Mehrotra (supra), that the decision in K.
Manjushree (supra), did not notice the decision
of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana
(1985) 4 SCC 417 and K.H. Siraj vs. High Court
of Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395, was
met
with the following observations:-
"15. There is no manner of doubt that the
authority making rules regulating the selection
can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both
the written examination and viva voce, but if
minimum marks are not prescribed for viva
voce
before the commencement of selection
process,
the authority concerned, cannot either during
the selection process or after the selection
process add an additional requirement/
qualification that the candidate should also
secure minimum marks in the interview.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
prescription of minimum marks by the
respondent at viva voce test was illegal.
16. The contention raised by the learned
counsel
for the respondent that the decision rendered
in
K. Manjusree did not notice the decisions in
Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana as well
as in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerela and,
therefore, should be regarded either as
decision
per incuriam or should be referred to a larger
Bench for reconsideration, cannot be
accepted.
What is laid down in the decisions relied upon
ReplyDeleteby
the learned counsel for the respondent is that
it
is always open to the authority making the
rules
regulating the selection to prescribe the
minimum marks both for written examination
and interview. The question whether
introduction
of the requirement of minimum marks for
interview after the entire selection process was
completed was valid or not, never fell for
consideration of this Court in the decisions
referred to by the learned counsel for the
respondent. While deciding the case of K.
Manjusree the Court noticed the decisions in
(1)
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India; (2)
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India; and
(3)
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, and has
thereafter laid down the proposition of law
which is quoted above. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case this Court is of the
opinion that the decision rendered by this
Court
in K. Manjusree can neither be regarded as
judgment per incuriam nor good case is made
out by the respondent for referring the matter
to the larger Bench for reconsidering the said
decision."
28. In Tej Prakash Pathak and ors vs. Rajasthan
High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540 a
three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court
reiterated
the principles, which have been ingrained in
service law since State of Haryana vs. Subash
Chandra Marwa (1974) 3 SCC 220. After
considering the entire case law on the subject
the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"9. In the context of the employment covered
by
the regime of Article 309, the ''law' - the
recruitment rules in theory could be either
prospective or retrospective subject of course
to
the rule of non- arbitrariness. However, in the
context of employment under the
instrumentalities of the State which is normally
regulated by subordinate legislation, such rules
cannot be made retrospectivelyunless
specifically authorised by some constitutionally
valid statute.
10. Under the Scheme of our Constitution an
absolute and non-negotiable prohibition
against
retrospective law making is made only with
reference to the creation of crimes. Any other
legal right or obligation could be created,
altered, extinguished retrospectivelyby the
sovereign law making bodies.
However such
ReplyDeletedrastic power is required to be exercised in a
manner that it does not conflict with any other
constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as,
Articles 14 and 16 etc. Changing the ''rules of
game' either midstream or after the game is
played is an aspect of retrospective law making
power.
11. Those various cases deal with situations
where the State sought to alter (1) the
eligibility
criteria of the candidates seeking employment
or
(2) the method and manner of making the
selection of the suitable candidates. The latter
could be termed as the procedure adopted for
the selection, such as, prescribing minimum
cut-
off marks to be secured by the candidates
either
in the written examination or viva-voce as was
done in the case of Manjusree (supra) or the
present case or calling upon the candidates to
undergo some test relevant to the nature of
the
employment [such as driving test as was the
case in Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (supra).
12. If the principle of Manjusree's case (supra)
is
applied strictly to the present case, the
respondent High Court is bound to recruit 13
of
the "best" candidates out of the 21 who
applied
irrespective of their performance in the
examination held. In such cases, theoretically it
is
possible that candidates securing very low
marks
but higher than some other competing
candidates may have to be appointed. In our
opinion, application of the principle as laid
down
in Manjusree case (supra) without any further
scrutiny would not be in the larger public
interest or the goal of establishing an efficient
administrative machinery.
13. This Court in the case of the State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and
Others
[(1974) 3 SCC 220] while dealing with the
recruitment of subordinate judges of the
Punjab
Civil Services (Judicial Branch) had to deal with
the situation where the relevant Rule
prescribed
a minimum qualifying marks. The recruitment
was for filling up of 15 vacancies. 40
candidates
secured the minimum qualifying marks (45%).
Only 7 candidates who secured 55% and above
marks were appointed and the remaining
vacancies were kept unfilled. The decision of
the
State Government not to fill up the remaining
vacancies in spite of the availability of
candidates who secured the minimum
ReplyDeletequalifying
marks was challenged. The State Government
defended its decision not to fill up posts on
the
ground that the decision was taken to
maintain
the high standards of competence in judicial
service. The High Court upheld the challenge
and
issued a mandamus. In appeal, this Court
reversed and opined that the candidates
securing minimum qualifying marks at an
examination held for the purpose of
recruitment
into the service of the State have no legal
right
to be appointed. In the context, it was held:-
12. ......In a case where appointments are
made
by selection from a number of eligible
candidates it is open to the Government with a
view to maintain high-standards of
competence
to fix a score which is much higher than the
one
required for more (sic mere) eligibility.......
14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra) does not appear to
have been brought to the notice of their
Lordships in the case of Manjusree (supra).
This
Court in the case of Manjusree (supra) relied
upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others v.
Union
of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141], Umesh
Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Others
[(1985) 3 SCC 721] and Durgacharan Misra v.
State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646].
In none of the cases, the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra) was considered.
15.No doubt it is a salutary principle not to
permit the State or its instrumentalities to
tinker
with the ''rules of the game' insofar as the
prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned
as
was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiahv.
State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] etc. in
order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment
process and its results. Whether such a
principle
should be applied in the context of the ''rules
of
the game' stipulating the procedure for
selection
more particularly when the change sought is to
impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection
requires an authoritative pronouncement of a
larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore,
order
that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in
this regard."
29. In the present case more than 3 lacs
persons
participated in the selections from which about
30,000 was shortlisted upto the 3rd step which
ReplyDeletewas given up and fresh selections were
announced only on the death of one of the
candidates. The unfortunate incident by no
stretch of imagination could be a ground to
cancel the entire selections. In the police force
and para military services a candidate
participates in the selection and thereafter in
training at his own risk. The standards of
physical efficiency test, which have stood the
test of time and were uniformly applied to all
the candidates in which more than 30,000
candidates participated, could not be treated
to
be rigorous on the death of one candidate. His
medical condition was not subjected to any
enquiry. The incident, however, was singular
and
should not have been taken into consideration
except for sympathies to his family of the
deceased. The incident, without any proper
enquiry could not have been taken into account
for relaxing the rule by an amendment during
the process of selections and for taking a
decision to cancel the entire selections in which
about 3 lacs candidates had participated.
30. We are informed that on account of delay
in
the selections and the pendency of the writ
petitions, the State Government has not yet
started the exercise of making fresh selections
causing serious shortage of police officers at
entry level, resulting into deteriorating law and
order situation in the State of UP and delay in
pending investigations in the criminal cases.
31. In the past the succeeding Governments in
the State of UP, have not favoured the
recruitment in the police force at the entry
level
of Constables or Sub Inspectors initiated by
the
previous Governments. The administration and
management of the police force by the
Government to their advantage, has been a
subject matter of perpetual litigation in courts
in
the State of UP. The selections of Constables
was cancelled twice by succeeding
governments
in the past resulting into severe shortage of
the
trained Constables in the State of UP.
32. Every discretionary power in public law has
to be structured on objective principles to be
exercised with scrupulous care. The powers in
public sphere vested in the authorities, for
taking administrative decisions is given in order
to deal with a case in a just
fair and equitable
ReplyDeletemanner keeping in view the principles of law.
The
discretion must not be exercised to swallow
the
objectives for the purposes of which it is
vested
and to render the basic purpose and object of
use of power nugatory.
33. In the case in hand an exercise with more
serious consideration and with expert legal
advice should have preceded the decision taken
by the senior police officers sitting together,
to
cancel the entire selection. There is nothing to
show that they had taken any legal opinion
from
State Law Officers, on the interim order
passed
by the Court giving them option to either
pursue with the selections under the old rules
or
to cancel the entire selections. The State
appellant has not placed any material before us
that it had taken into consideration the
expenditure incurred in the selections
advertised
in the year 2011, and the public interest to be
served in notifying the selections afresh. The
expenditure incurred in the selections, the
requirement of the police officers at entry
level,
the aspirations and legitimate expectation of
more than 30,000 young men and women of
the
State, who had crossed the 3rd level in the
selections, and the absence of any scientific
data
which was required to be collected from
National Sports Colleges or experts in the
Sports Medicine has vitiated the decision to
cancel the entire selections. The entire exercise
is
thus held to be wholly arbitrary and
unreasonable.
34. We do not find any good ground to
interfere with the judgment of learned Single
Judge in setting aside the Government Order
dated 3.9.2013, and the consequential orders
dated 24.9.2013 by which the selections were
cancelled.
35. The Special Appeal is dismissed. The
respondents will complete the selection
process
initiated by advertisement dated 19.5.2011 as
expeditiously as possible. There shall be no
orders as to cost.
Dt.25.4.2014
RKP/
साथियों अखबार के समाचार को ध्यान से पढ़ने
ReplyDeleteके लिए समय की जरुरत होती है,
वरना उसका भाव बदल जाता है, अगर फीडिंग
पर रोक लगाई है, इसका मतलब ये नही कि काम
बंद हो गया है, ये तो मैं भी सोच रहा था, ये
तो बहुत ही अच्छा हुआ है, कि एक आने
वाली टेंशन पहले ही समाप्त हो गयी, मतलब ये
जो गलत तरीके से एंट्री की संभावना बन रही थी,
ये लोग बाद में निकलने में बहुत परेशान करते,
समय रहते बात संभल गयी है, दोस्तों अपने आप
में ये भर्ती बहुत विशेष है, सब कुछ अलग तरीके
से चल रहे है, मुझे तो अब बहुत अच्छा लगने
लगा है, कि फॉर्म ऑफ लाइन और... भर्ती ऑन
लाइन, मेरिट जिलावार..... काउंसेलिंग प्रदेश
वार, जोनल सेण्टर पर होगी काउंसेलिंग,
ऐसा लगेगा जैसे किसी उच्च स्तरीय सेमीनार में
जा रहे हो, सब कुछ संभल कर होगा, बिल्कुल न
चिंता करे, जो आवेदन डायट में पहुंच चुके और
किसी अन्य कारण से रिजेक्ट नही है, भर्ती में
शामिल रहेंगे, तो फीस हो, या ड्राफ्ट वापिस हो,
कोई तनाव लेने वाली बात नही है, किसी ने
अपना अभ्यर्थन निरस्त नही किया है, सिर्फ
उन्ही अधिकारी और कोर्ट के आदेश पर एक
सामान्य प्रारूप पर फीस वापिसी मंगाई, जिनके
मांगने पर फीस दी थी, तो ये तनाव तो दिमाग से
निकाल दो, अब तो बस हमे इंतज़ार है, लाइन में
खड़े होकर अपनी बारी का, और ये सपना बहुत
ही जल्द पूरा होने वाला है, बस एक बार फिर
कहता हूँ, कि नकारात्मक विचारों से अपने आप
को बहुत दूर रखे, फिर देखो सब कुछ
कितना अच्छा लगता है, ईश्वर में विश्वाश
रखना कोई बुराई नही , वही है जो हमे कष्टों के
समय पर साथ देता है, हमेशा खुश रहो व्यस्त
रहो, जिंदगी ही बदल जायेगी, अब दिन नही प्रहर
भर में समय बदलता हुआ नजर आएगा,
ओम् साईं राम..
जय हो,
सा॰ 98 तक
ReplyDeleteपिछडा 95 तक
अनु॰ 86 तक का हो जायेगा आराम करे अभी
महिला 3 न॰ तक कम कर ले
मोदी के तमाम विरोधी कह रहे हैं कि देश
ReplyDeleteमें उनकी कोई लहर नहीं है. लेकिन बनारस
मो ये जो जनसैलाब
उमड़ा वो क्या था....
मौसम विभाग ने
जारी की चेतावनीमोदी नाम का एक तूफ़ान
बड़ी तेज़ी से राजस्थान,गुजरात, छत्तीस
गढ़मध्य परदेश के रास्ते दिल्ली की ओर
बढ़ रहा है।जिससे 10 जनपथ में
भारी तबाही की आशंका है।
सभी कांग्रेस्सियो को सूचित
किया जाता हैकी सुरक्षित
स्थानों की ओर चले जाए।इस तूफ़ान
की 17 मई
को दिल्ली पहुचनेकी सम्भावना है।
Daroga bharti me bhi dobule bench ne kiya old add zindabad,,s.p government par court ka ek aur chabuk..kya sarkar ke nyay vibhag me sbhi log paise dekar bharti huye hai jo sarkar ka payment lekar sarkar ki kirkiri har vacancy me kara rahe hai..?
ReplyDeleteHeart Touching Story
ReplyDeleteA 5 Yrs Old Boy Went To A Pharmacy And Asked The Pharmacist..
"This Is The 0nly Money I Have, Can I Buy Miracles..?"
The Pharmacist Confused With What The Boy Asked And Said..
"Why Do You Need Miracles For..?"
The Boy Replied... Because The Doctor Said That "0nly Miracles Can Save My Mom.."
वाराणसी में मोदी के नामांकन में भीड़ को देखकर हर राजनीतिक दाल चिंतित हैं कांग्रेस प्रवक्ता राशिद अल्वी का कहना हैं की ये भाड़े की भीड़ थी| कांग्रेस को क्या लगता हैं की इतनी भीड़ पैसे के दम पर इकठ्ठा कि जा सकती है? क्या देश की जनता इतनी मुर्ख हैं की १०० या २०० रुपये के लिए उससे अधिक कमा रहा इंसान दिन भर धुप में खड़ा रहा सकता हैं ? आज हम लोग इतने सुबिधा भोगी हो गये की थोड़ी सी धुप बर्दाश्त नहीं होती | फिर इतनी बड़ी संख्या मेलोग सुबह से शाम तक एक इंसान की झलक के लिए भला क्यों परेशान होंगे|
ReplyDeleteअक्सर मैंने देखा हैं की बड़ी-बड़ी घटनाये घट जाती हैं लेकिन भारतीय जनमानस में हलचल नहीं होती | ये सोये इंसान तब जागते है जब पानी सर के ऊपर से गुजरता हैं, जैसे १६ दिसंबर की घटना के बाद हुआ था | लगातार १० सालों के कु-शासन और निचले तबके के हो रहे इंसानों की उम्मीद मोदी के नामांकन में दिखी थी |
!
ReplyDelete!
!
!
!
!
सु
!
नो
!
!
!
स
!
ज
!
नी
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Kuch Chehray Bhulaye NahiJaatay,
Kuch Naam Dil Se Mitaye Nahi Jaatay,
Mulaqat Ho Na ho..Leikin ae yaar…
Pyaar ke Chirag Kabi Bhujaye Nahi Jaatay…
!
ReplyDelete!
!
!
!
!
सु
!
नो
!
!
!
स
!
ज
!
नी
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
When time comes for u
to give ur heart to someone,
make sure u select someone
who will never break ur heart,
Bhai umashankarji, jo form diet vaalo ne nahi feed kiya hai ;unka kya hoga jabki isme kshatro ki kya galti hai.
ReplyDelete