Sarkari Naukri Recruitment Result टीईटी शिक्षक भर्ती TET UPTET BETET Merit/Counselling/Appointment: March 2018

Saturday, March 31, 2018

बेसिक शिक्षको की स्थानांतरण लिस्ट में अनियमितता का बोलबाला और कोर्ट के आदेश की भी धज्जियां उड़ीं

बेसिक शिक्षको की स्थानांतरण लिस्ट में अनियमितता का बोलबाला और कोर्ट के आदेश की भी धज्जियां उड़ीं

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने बिना जांचे 1916 की जोइनिंग डेट , सितंबर व नवम्बर 2018 की जोइनिंग डेट , शून्य व 1 साल की सर्विस अवधि वाले असाध्य शिक्षकों की संख्या 535 और इस तरह से कम सेवा अवधि वालों ने तेज बढ़त कर कई लोगों को पीछे धकेल छोड़ दिया

अब आते हैं कोर्ट के आदेश पर : कोर्ट ने महिलाओं को विशेष परिस्थितियों में 5 वर्ष से छूट देने का आदेश दिया था

अब आते हैं कोर्ट के आदेश पर : कोर्ट ने महिलाओं को विशेष परिस्थितियों में 5 वर्ष से छूट देने का आदेश दिया था |
लेकिन महिलाओं की विशेष परिस्थिति जांचे बिना सभी महिलाओं को 5 वर्ष से छूट देकर आवेदन मौका दे दिया , यहाँ तक की कई महिलाओं ने पति के कार्यस्थल जिले की जगह कहीं और आवेदन किया हुआ है |
कोर्ट ने अपने आदेशों में विशेष परिस्थिति का उध्दरण करके कठोर दिप्पणियाँ भी की हुई थी की हस्बेंड किसी और जिले में सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत है ,

और वाइफ किसी और जिले में और yeh ek Jatil samasya hai

Lekin filhal Transfer choice based ho rahe hain, Aur Prsashnik Karno se nahin ho rahe, Lekin Pati Patni vale cases me Mamulee variyata dekar chhod diya, aur is prkar anko ganit me ve peeche chhoot gaye
पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर पोस्टिंग देने का इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट का स्पष्ट आदेश देखें , अगर कोई प्रशासनिक अड़चन , नियम क़ानूनी अड़चन न हो तो
ट्रांसफर देने में कोई समस्या नहीं,

Click here to see order
What kind of perplexities and difficulties, a spouse could confront with in the event of another being posted at a different place, can easily be imagined by anyone by putting himself/herself in that situation and then it would be realised that now torturous and painful it really is, to leave husband and children at one place and to lead a solitary life at the transfer place. Therefore, to avoid such disturbance and mental agony, the aforesaid guidelines are framed

****************
Bibha Singh Case Order:
The intention of rule making authority is very clear and it needs no elaboration.�Relevant it would be to mention that in transfer policy of State Government for Government employees there is provision only for husband and wife but in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 the in-laws of the female teachers have also been included. Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order.
https://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2017/10/breaking-news-5.html
*******************

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Transfer List me farjeewada - Joining Date Sept 2018, Nov 2018 tak Darshayee, Jo ki Abhee Aayee Hee Nahin, Vibhag ne Bina Verify Kiye Farjee Data Dal Diya -

Transfer List me farjeewada - Joining Date Sept 2018, Nov 2018 tak Darshayee, Jo ki Abhee Aayee Hee Nahin, Vibhag ne Bina Verify Kiye Farjee Data Dal Diya -

Sl.	ApplicationNo.	Current Posting District	Teacher Name
Sl.	ApplicationNo.	Current Posting District	Teacher Name
29805	30435	SULTANPUR	NISHA SAROJ
29806	31774	JAUNPUR	NIROOPMA SINGH
29807	29597	MUZAFFARNAGAR	NEELAM MALIK
29808	30475	CHANDAULI	SMT SADHNA SHARMA
29809	03748	GONDA	ANSHU SINGH

District choice1	District choice2	District choice3	Joining date in Current District
District choice1	District choice2	District choice3	Joining date in Current District
JAUNPUR	JAUNPUR	JAUNPUR	12-02-2018
BANARAS	BANARAS	BANARAS	12-02-2018
BAGHPAT	BAGHPAT	MEERUT	07-08-2018
GORAKHPUR	KUSHINAGAR	DEORIA	23-09-2018
MEERUT	MUZAFFARNAGAR	MORADABAD	18-11-2018

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Basic Teacher Transfer List Quality Points, See here -

Basic Teacher Transfer List Quality Points, See here -

http://upbeb.org/index.php/inter-district-transfer-2017-18-quality-points/send/2-teachers-transfer/2-inter-district-transfer-2017-18-quality-points

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

असाध्य रोग के आधार पर वी आई पी जिले गौतम बुद्धनगर , गाजियाबाद , लखनऊ, बागपत , मेरठ , आगरा में ट्रांसफर के केसेस :-

असाध्य रोग के आधार पर वी आई पी जिले गौतम बुद्धनगर , गाजियाबाद , लखनऊ, बागपत , मेरठ , आगरा में ट्रांसफर के केसेस :-

नीचे सिर्फ एक सेम्पल है , लेकिन असाध्यरोग वाले केसेस में ज्यादातर वी आई जिलों ट्रांसफर की मांग पर हैं :-

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग द्वारा जारी ट्रांसफर लिस्ट में गड़बड़घोटाला

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग द्वारा जारी ट्रांसफर लिस्ट में गड़बड़घोटाला

आज सोशल मीडिया पर ट्रांसफर की लिस्ट वायरल हो गयी , इसमें किसी दीक्षा सिंह (सिद्धार्थनगर जिला ) की जोइनिंग डेट 1916 दिखाई गयी तो बहुत से ऐसे हैं , जिनकी सर्विस 35 साल से भी अधिक है जबकि ट्रांसफर के आवेदन के वही लोग पात्र बताये जा रहे थे जिन्होंने पहली बार ट्रांसफर के लिए एप्लाई किया है ,लेकिन ऐसे 35 साल की सर्विस वाले लोगों के बारे में कहा जा रहा है की या तो ये फर्जी हैं , या फिर इन्होने पहले ट्रांसफर का लाभ लिया होगा |
इसलिए कई लोग जन्मतिथि दर्शाने की करने की चर्चा कर रहे हैं |
डेटा वेरिफाइड नहीं है ये तो दीक्षा सिंह जोइनिंग डेट 1916 देख कर पता चल रहा है , लेकिन गहराई से छान बीन की जाये तो फर्जी असाध्य रोग , एक बार पहले ही ट्रांसफर का लाभ लेने वाले और अन्य फर्जी दस्तावेजों वाले तमाम कैंडिडेट्स मिलेंगे |

सबसे बड़ा घटनाक्रम ये हुआ की विशेष परिस्थिति ( पति पत्नी विभिन्न जिलों में कार्यरत एवं उत्तर प्रदेश शासकीय नीति - की पति पत्नी दोनों सरकारी सेवा में हों का भी अनुसरण करने वाले केस ) वाले अभ्यर्थी पीछे रह गए , जिनके लिए यथा संभव एक जिले में पोस्टिंग की है इसके कोई विशेष अंक भी नहीं दिए गए ,
और सामान्य परिस्थिति के अभ्यर्थियों से पीछे धकेल दिया |

एक और जानकारी सामने आ रही है , की कई लोगों ने उन जिलों में भी एप्लाई किया है , जिन जिलों अंतर्जनपदीय ट्रांसफर की रिक्ति शून्य है |
उनका तर्क है की उन जिलों से जब ट्रांसफर होंगे , तो फिर उनको मौका मिल जाएगा |
लेकिन ऐसा है तो यह कई अभ्यर्थियों के साथ धोखा है , क्योंकि वे जीरो रिक्ति में एप्लाई नहीं कर सके |
या तो कई चरणों में इस ट्रांसफर पद्दति को पूरा किया जाता , की अगले चरण ट्रांसफर से सीट खाली होने पर दोबारा से आवेदन लिए जाते |
इसके अलावा रिटायरमेंट के बाद रिक्तियों की संख्या भी बड़ी होंगी |

लिस्ट में ये भी देखा गया की कई हेड मास्टर (यु पी एस ) ने भी ट्रांसफर के लिए एप्लाई किया है |

असाध्य रोग वाले केसेस काफी बढ़ चढ़कर , लगभग 2000 हैं और गड़बड़ी की शंका जताई जा रही है , असाध्य रोग वाले केसेस में पति पत्नी या फिर बच्चे को शामिल किया जाना था , लेकिन लोगों में चर्चा है की इन लॉस (सास ससुर माता पिता ) को दिखा कर कुछ लोग गड़बड़ी कर रहे होंगे और ये सही केसेस नहीं होंगे

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

News -बेसिक विभाग की लापरवाही की कारण कुछ लोग ट्रांसफर के लिए एप्लाई नहीं कर पाए , 1 हफ्ते के अंदर मेनुअली डाटा भर कर ट्रांसफर में चांस देने का आदेश -

News -बेसिक विभाग की लापरवाही की कारण कुछ लोग ट्रांसफर के लिए एप्लाई नहीं कर पाए , 1 हफ्ते के अंदर मेनुअली डाटा
भर कर ट्रांसफर में चांस देने का आदेश  -

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8076 of 2018

Petitioner :- Smt. Reena Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.� Shri Prem Prakash Yadav appears for respondent nos.2 to 4.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to second respondent i.e. U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad through its Secretary to upload the data of the petitioner on the website and permit the petitioner to submit her application for transfer on the website.
Learned counsel for the petitioner apprises to the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 6.3.2018 passed in Writ-A No.6976 of 2018 (Deepika Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition.� The operative portion of the order dated 6.3.2018 is quoted as under:-
"...............While entertaining the writ petition, this Court permitted Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel representing District Basic Education Officer, to obtain instructions. Sri Tripathi has obtained instructions, which are taken on record. The District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar in his instructions has stated that directions have already been issued to the concerned Finance and Account Officer for updating the required details of present petitioners i.e. their PAN number and Bank Account number.
From the instructions brought on record, it is apparent that petitioners' details i.e. PAN number and Bank Account number were not updated by the respondents on the online data. Admittedly it was for the respondents to have uploaded all such details on the website. It appears that there has been some communication between the office of District Basic Education Officer and the District Information & Science Officer, N.I.C., Kushinagar for updating the details of the petitioners. It is, however, not disputed that the details of the petitioners have not been uploaded and in its absence, the petitioners could not apply online for processing of their transfer application.
Once the petitioners were entitled to apply for consideration of their transfer applications, and such applications have not been entertained for any fault in uploading of details by the respondents, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the relief prayed for.
This writ petition, consequently, stands disposed of with a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, to entertain and forward the transfer applications of the petitioners manually, within a week from today, to the concerned authorities for its examination and processing in accordance with the policy framed for the purpose."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as have been given in Deepika Tiwari & Ors. (Supra).
Order Date :- 19.3.2018
SP/

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Breaking News - पहले महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की लिस्ट आएगी , इस कारण पुरुषों की नेक्स्ट हियरिंग डेट 12 अप्रेल कर दी है , एक और ऑर्डर से जानकारी मिली है की छूटे लोगों को मौका मिलने से लिस्ट सम्भवत अप्रैल के पहले आना मुश्किल -

Breaking News - पहले महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की लिस्ट आएगी , इस कारण पुरुषों की नेक्स्ट हियरिंग डेट 12 अप्रेल कर दी है ,
एक और ऑर्डर से जानकारी मिली है की छूटे लोगों को मौका मिलने से लिस्ट सम्भवत अप्रैल के पहले आना मुश्किल  -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4950 of 2018

Petitioner :- Anuruddha Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Kant Trigunait,Lakshmi Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar,Bhanu Pratap Singh

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
On the matter being taken up on 07.02.2018 the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-
"Connect with Writ Petition Nos.3219 of 2018, 5025 of 2018, 5004 of 2018, 4992 of 2018, 4948 of 2018, 4937 of 2018, 4841 of 2018, 4821 of 2018, 4740 of 2018, 4735 of 2018, 4729 of 2018, 4640 of 2018, 4621 of 2018, 4615 of 2018, 4611 of 2018, 4568 of 2018, 4525 of 2018, 4471 of 2018, 4400 of 2018, 4231 of 2018, 4055 of 2018, 4048 of 2010, 3897 of 2018, 3853 of 2018, 3649 of 2018, 3499 of 2018, 5127 of 2018 and 5107 of 2018.
The present bunch of matters relates to Assistant Teachers posted at different schools run by Basic Education Board seeking transfer.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner working as Assistant Teacher, whose services are governed in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short "the Rules of 1981") as well as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008, amended Rules, 2010, seeks transfer on the medical ground as he is suffering from ailment of kidney and also having blood pressure and the doctors have referred him for treatment at Medical College, Kanpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions contained under Para-4 (8) (kha) of the order dated 13.6.2017, which talks about the teachers, who are suffering from serious diseases but no relaxation is made with regard to five years satisfactory service and as such the same is arbitrary and in violation to Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981. Various other grounds have also been taken in the connected writ petitions.
Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, who represents third and fourth respondent pray for and are accorded ten days time to file response in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 26.02.2018 for further hearing along with all connected matters.
Let a copy of this order be given to learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav appearing for third and fourth respondents free of cost for necessary compliance."
Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 05.03.2018 and the Court has passed the following order:-
"Shri P.K. Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate appearing for third, fifth and sixth respondents are accorded one week's time to file response in the matter. Three day's, thereafter, time is accorded to the petitioner to file Rejoinder Affidavit.
List this matter on 19.03.2018 alongwith record of Writ Petition no.30538 of 2017 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others). Petitioner's counsel would be at liberty to make a mention for taking the matter out of turn."
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel placed the instructions dated 19.03.2018 sent by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad, which is taken on record.
On the basis of instructions, he informs the Court that pursuant to the judgment and order rendered on 6.2.2018 in Writ A No.2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and 21 others vs. State of UP and 2 others) the process for transfer of ladies teachers under Section 8 (2 (D) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 as amended Rule 2010 is going on and at the final stage.� The online applications have already been invited and the date for submission of the same has also expired.� It is submitted that in case any intervention is made at this stage, there would be complete chaos in the department, and as such hearing of the present matter relating to the transfer of male teachers may be deferred so that the aforesaid list may be finalised.
The request so made is accepted.� List this matter on 12.04.2018 along with all connected matters. Petitioners' counsel would be at liberty to make a mention for taking up the matter out of turn.
Order Date :- 19.3.2018
SP/

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Transfer News - झारखंड में भी यू पी की तरह महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की नियमावली है, लेकिन कोर्ट ने इस नियम को विरुध्द नहीं माना, और रिट खारिज की -

Transfer News - झारखंड में भी यू पी की तरह महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की नियमावली है, लेकिन कोर्ट ने इस नियम को विरुध्द नहीं माना, और रिट खारिज की -

हमारी समझ से केस ये है की :
झारखण्ड के केस में महिलाओं को पति या होम टाउन किसी भी स्टेट में ट्रांसफर लेने का चांस था ,
लेकिन पुरुषों के लिए केवल होम टाउन में ट्रांसफर का चांस था ,
जब झारखण्ड और बिहार अलग हुए तो बहुत से पुरुषों के होम टाउन बिहार में रह गए म जबकि वे काम झारखण्ड में कर रहे थे ,
इससे झारखण्ड में उनका होम टाउन नहीं रहा , और वे झारखंड में ही ट्रांसफर के हक़दार रहे |
महिलाओं थोड़ा फायदे में रहीं की उनके पति का निवास स्थान अगर बॉर्डर / बिहार से सटे इलाकों के आस पास के जिले में होगा तो वहां पति की जॉब के आधार पर ट्रांसफर ले कर झारखण्ड में ही बिहार के नजदीक आ गयी होंगी |

लेकिन पुरुष होम डिस्ट्रिक्ट में ही ट्रांसफर ले सकते थे जो की झाखंड में नहीं है , और बिहार में रह गया तो उन्हें इस होम डिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर नियम का फायदा नहीं मिल पाया , उन्होंने आर्टिकल 16 (2 ) के समानता के आधार पर रूल को नियम विरुध्द करने की कोशिश की लेकिन सफलता नहीं मिली

महिलाओं व पुरुषों के लिए पृथक रूल होने पर आर्टिकल 16 (B) को आधार बना कर ट्रांसफर रूल रद्द कराने की कोशिश की थी ,

लेकिन कोर्ट ने इसको अल्ट्रवॉयरस (नियम विरुध्द ) घोषित नहीं किया

Jharkhand High Court

Anil Kumar Choudhary And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 2 April, 2008

Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) JCR 624 Jhr

Author: M K Vinayagam

Bench: M K Vinayagam, D Patnaik

JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a declaration that Rule 4(2)(6) of the Bihar State Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994, as adopted by the Government of Jharkhand under the provisions of Section 85 of the Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000 is ultra vires to the extent it lays down the eligibility of Home District necessary for inter-district transfer of the male teachers on the ground that the same is against the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:

(i) The petitioners were appointed on the post of Elementary Teachers in January 2000. Some of the petitioners were posted at Palamau and some of the petitioners were posted at Latehar.

(ii) They have completed five years of minimum service in the Government of Jharkhand. They filed their application for inter-district transfer in view of Rule 4 of the Bihar State Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994.

(iii) The District Education Establishment Committee considered the applications for inter-district transfer and their names were recommended to the Director, Primary Education, but their applications were, ultimately returned by the Director, Primary Education on the ground that the petitioners belonging to the district of Latehar did not fulfill the criteria of home district.

(iv) Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 lays down the condition under which any teacher can be transferred from one district to another and Rule 4(2) (5) lays down that during entire service tenure of any teacher inter-district transfer shall be done only once.

(v) Rule 4(2)(6) provides that in case of male teachers, they can be transferred in their home district in case of inter-district transfer, but the same Rule provides that In case of female teachers, they have been given three options in case of inter district transfer and according to this Rule, they can be transferred to their Home District or to the Home District of their husband or to the place of posting of their husband.

(vi) The aforesaid provisions were not amended after re-organisation of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, as a result of which the petitioners, whose home district fall within the territory of re-organised State of Bihar have been denied the benefit of inter-district transfer.

(vii) On account of re-organisation of States, all the petitioners, whose home districts fell within the territory of re-organised State of Bihar, have settled in one or the other districts within the re-organised State of Jharkhand and are having residence within the State of Jharkhand and it is on this account that they prayed for inter-district transfer from their place of posting district to the district of their permanent residence.

(viii) But, in the instant case, the petitioners have been denied inter-district transfer only on the ground that their home district is not falling in the Jharkhand State.

(ix) Therefore, the Rule 4(2)(6) of the Rules, 1994 and Amended Rules, 1997 duly adopted by the State of Jharkhand is ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India as it lays down the criterial of only Home District in case of male teachers as a necessary eligibility for inter-district transfer.

3. In elaborating this point, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue at length and cite 2003 (1) JCR 3 (Jhr) (Spl. Bench).

4. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the State would submit that it is not ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, namely, 2003 (1) JCR 3 (Jhr) (Spl. Bench) is not applicable to the present case as the said judgment relates to the definition of local persons, which is a totally different matter.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.

6. The main ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to challenge the relevant Rules is restrictions of inter-district transfer from one district to another is ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

7. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the cadre of elementary teachers, i.e., the petitioners is a district cadre. At the initial point of appointment, itself, the elementary teachers are appointed at district level. The very appointment of the petitioners has been made on district cadre for a particular district.

8. The rule framed by the Government is in the form of relaxation, which is being granted to elementary teachers allowing them inter district transfer only once in their entire service tenure subject to conditions among other that the transfer shall be made in respect of male teachers in their home district only. The said relaxation had been granted keeping in view the fact that for a certain period, the district cadre employees should be allowed to serve in their home districts in order to increase their efficiency in their working.

9. The main contention by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said relaxation granted in favour of the elementary teachers, male and female is contrary to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, on the ground that after re-organisation of the States, the petitioners' services are in the State of Jharkhand whereas their home districts belongs to the State of Bihar, thereby they cannot avail the benefit of the said Rule. This contention is not tenable because reorganisation of the State is a fait accompli and merely because of the petitioners home district, after bifurcation, falls in the successor State, it does not render the rule framed by the Government as ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

10. According to the Recruitment Rules from the beginning the appointment of elementary teachers are done strictly on the recommendation of the competent authority. Under such circumstances, candidates for the post of elementary teachers are given liberty to apply from the district of their choice and after fulfilling the requisite qualification, they are appointed in the district.

11. Since the cadre of elementary teachers is district cadre, normally they are allowed to be transferred within the district according to the provisions of Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994 and amended Rules, 1997. There is a provision for inter-district transfer in certain cases, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in the provisions of the said mentioned Rules and those conditions are applicable to every teacher of the elementary school who are desirous of inter-district transfer. As such, the provisions laid down in the said Rules by way of relaxation are not contrary to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

12. The inter-district transfer is not a general transfer for an employee, who belongs to district cadre, i.e., in the case of district cadre, the employees are required to work within the district during the entire service tenure, as such, it cannot be contended that it is contrary to Article 16(2)of the Constitution of India.

There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, It is dismissed.

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

Monday, March 19, 2018

UPTET News -72825 शिक्षक भर्ती के बचे हुुुए पदों पर भर्ती पूर्ण करने हेतु कोर्ट् ने सरकार को कानूनानुसार निर्णय लेने को कहा, देखें आदेश

UPTET  News -72825 शिक्षक भर्ती के बचे हुुुए पदों पर भर्ती पूर्ण करने हेतु कोर्ट् ने सरकार को कानूनानुसार निर्णय लेने को कहा,
देखें आदेश

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8129 of 2018

Petitioner :- Nirdesh Tiwari And 27 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Chandra Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are before this Court to issue direction to the respondents to complete the recruitment process for remaining 1536 posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and issue appointment letters in their favour in the light of decision of Apex Court dated 25.7.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 (State of UP and ors vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others).
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have already filed a representation dated 09.03.2018 before the respondent no.2 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow for redressal of their grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that the petitioners' representation dated 08.03.2018 may be considered by the appropriate authority.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents has no objection to the said prayer.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow to decide the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 19.3.2018
SP/

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Thursday, March 15, 2018

कोर्ट: ट्रांसफर सिर्फ गाइड लाइंस के आधार पर हो सकते हैं

कोर्ट: ट्रांसफर सिर्फ गाइड लाइंस के आधार पर हो सकते हैं,

The Government Order with regard to the service conditions of the physically handicapped employees, with regard to transfer is only to be treated as guidelines for the Government, which do not give any enforceable right to an employee to challenge the transfer as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas (supra).

Madras High Court

S.Sandira vs The Chairman on 7 January, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 07.01.2011

Coram

THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.No.22351 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

S.Sandira ... Petitioner

.. Vs ..

1. The Chairman,
Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric
Technical Education (PIPMATE),
Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008.

2. The Member Secretary,
Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric
Technical Education (PIPMATE),
Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008.

3. S.Rajangam ... Respondents

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent having ref. Ref.No.A/6/2/1/PIPMATE/2010-11/A3/690, dated 03.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to refer the Petitioner to the medical Board Government of Puducherry to decide whether the petitioner is a disabled person entitled to the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, dated 29.12.2005 and the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.23/97, dated 04.03.1997 issued by the Government of Puducherry and thereafter retain the Petitioner as Librarian in the Women's Polytechnic, Lawspet in the event of the respondents finding the petitioner to be a physically disabled person.

For Petitioner : M/s.Kavitha Deenadayalan

For RR-1 and 2 : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
For R-3 : Mr.Karthik
- - - - -

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.09.2010, vide which, the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic College, Yanam. The transfer has been ordered on the request of the third respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that she is a physically disabled person due to moderate hearing impairment from her childhood. In the year 1985, she got herself examined by the Government Medical Officer, Puducherry, where she was found to be deaf as per the definition mentioned in the National Employment Service Manual, which defines deaf as follows:-

"The deaf are those in whom the sense of hearing is non-functional for ordinary purposes of life. They do not hear understand sounds at all events having hearing loss more than 90 decibels in the better ear (profound impairment) or total loss of hearing in both ears."

2. Though the petitioner was physically disabled person, her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the PIPMATE in the year 1990 against general category for the post of Library Attender. She was selected and joined the post by availing age concession applicable to disabled persons.

3. The petitioner submits that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, (Law Division) vide their letter having Ref.F.No.10/46/94-LD/NHRC, dated 14.03.1995 forwarded its recommendations to the State of Puducherry to notify the guidelines to improve the service conditions of the disabled/physically handicapped employees working in different sectors. The recommendation were accepted by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.23/97-West (Sw.II), dated 04.03.1997 was issued by the Government of Puducherry.

4. Clause 15 of the Government Order reads as under:-

"15. The disabled/Physically handicapped employees shall be posted in/transferred to an office nearer to his/her residence or in a place of his/her choice, even by transferring the normal persons, if vacancy is not available."

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore was that as the petitioner is a disabled person, she is entitled to the protection of Government Order referred to above and that the transfer order is liable to be set aside.

6. In order to ascertain the disability of the petitioner, this Court directed the Chief Medical officer, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry, to constitute a medical board for assessing the medical disability of the petitioner. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was medical examined, and on the basis of medical test, Medical Board certified as under:-

C E R T I F I C A T E "Certified that Thiru/Tmt. Sandira, working as Librarian in the Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry, has appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2010 and we members of the Medical Board are of the opinion that NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT HEARING HANDICAPS MODERATE HEARING IMPAIRMENT, II(a)."

7. The disability pointed out on the petitioner is as under:-

Category Type of Impairment DB level Speech discrimination Percentage of impairment II (a) Moderate hearing impairment 41 to 60 dB in better ear 50 to 80% in better ear 40 % to 50% Thus the petitioner does not fall within the definition of deaf as given in National Employment Service Manual.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Clause 15 of the Government Order issued by the Government to regulate the service conditions of the handicapped person also, referred to Section 2(i) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which reads as under:-

"2(i) "disability" means -

(i) blindness;

(ii) low vision;

(iii) leprosy-cured;

(iv) hearing impairment

(v) locomotor disability;

(vi) mental retardation;

(viii) mental illness;"

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is to be treated as disabled, in terms of Clause 15 of the Government Order referred to above. As discussed above, in view of definition of deaf given in National Employment Service Manual, the hearing impairment of petitioner cannot be said to be the level of deafness.

10. In support of his contention that the disabled persons are not to be transferred, the petitioner placed reliance on a Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of V.K.Bhasin Vs. State Bank of Patiala and others decided on 03.08.2005, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that the person with disability is entitled protection under the Government Order, against the transfer.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents contended the plea of the petitioner on the ground, that the guidelines do not give enforceable right to the employee to challenge the order of transfer, specially when the petitioner has been performing her duties at the present place of posting for almost 20 years.

12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that on true interpretation of Government Order, the protection can be given to disabled persons to a limited extent that no inconvenience is caused in performing the duties, on account of disability suffered by the disabled employee. Facts of each case are required to be seen. The employee in garb of minor disability cannot seek protection against the Service Rules.

13. In support of the contention that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit under the Government Order, regarding the service conditions of disabled person, reliance was placed on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of A.V.V.Satyanarayana Vs. Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad and others reported in 1999(4) ALD 255, wherein, the transfer of physically handicapped person was upheld by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2444, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court was pleased to laid down as under:-

"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."

14. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition, for the reason that the objects and reasons of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - read as under:-

"Statement of Objects and Reasons The meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled Persons 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region. India is a signatory to the said proclamation and it is necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the following:-

(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities;

(iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-a-vis non-disabled persons;

(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;

(v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and

(vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream.

2. Accordingly, it is proposed to provide inter alia for the constitution of Co-ordination Committees and Executive Committees at the Central and State levels to carry out the various functions assigned to them. Within the limits of their economic capacity and development the appropriate Governments and the local authorities will have to undertake various measures for the prevention and early detection of disabilities, creation of barrier-free environment, provision for rehabilitation services, etc. The Bill also provides for education, employment and vocational training, reservation in identified posts, research and manpower development, establishment of homes for persons with severe disabilities, etc. For effective implementation of the provision of the Bill, appointment of the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities at the Central level and Commissioners for persons with disabilities at the State level clothed with powers to monitor the funds disbursed by the Central and State Governments and also to take steps to safeguard the rights of the persons with disabilities is also envisaged.

3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."

15. So the provisions of the Act, have to be interpreted to advance the object, i.e., to give equality to the disabled person with others. Therefore, it is to be seen that disabled employee does not suffer any inconvenience in performance of duties of office and that he/she is not discriminated on account of disability. The perusal of the report of Medical Board shows that the disability suffered by the petitioner is not the one, which can cause inconvenience to petitioner in performance of her duties at different places of posting.

16. The case of the petitioner is not that she is physically disabled to such an extent which can affect the movement of the petitioner (as was the case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court) in any way, as the disability suffered by her is of moderate hearing impairment.

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected against the general category and not against the seats reserved for disabled persons. Therefore, the guidelines on which strong reliance has been placed by the petitioner, are for the Government to consider, as to whether grave injustice is caused to the handicapped person by transfer or that the disability is likely to come in the way of the employee in performing the duties at transferred place. The guidelines would not give any enforceable right to the disabled person, to claim absolute right against the transfer, which is incident of service, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas (supra).

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that though the petitioner was appointed in general category, but she was given age concession by treating her to be physically handicapped. This contention of the learned counsel also does not advance the case, for the reasons mentioned above.

19. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any hardship is likely to be caused to the petitioner by transfer. The Government Order with regard to the service conditions of the physically handicapped employees, with regard to transfer is only to be treated as guidelines for the Government, which do not give any enforceable right to an employee to challenge the transfer as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas (supra).

20. Finding no merit in the writ petition it is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

jrl To

1. The Chairman, Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008.

2. The Member Secretary, Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008