TNTET : Tamil Nadu TET : एनसीटीई अधिनियम 29.07.2011 के बाद पदोन्नति और नियुक्ति के लिए टीईटी अनिवार्य है, मद्रास न्यायालय का निर्णय, अल्पसंख्यक स्कूलों के लिए भी कोई छूट नहीं

 TNTET : Tamil Nadu TET : एनसीटीई अधिनियम 29.07.2011 के बाद पदोन्नति और नियुक्ति के लिए टीईटी अनिवार्य है, मद्रास न्यायालय का निर्णय, अल्पसंख्यक स्कूलों के लिए भी कोई छूट नहीं

TET is mandatory for Promotion and appointment after NCTE Act 29.07.2011, Madras Court Judgement , No Relaxation for Minority Schools as well 

Madras High Court

T.Chitra Devi vs The Director Of School Education on 7 February, 2024

                                                     JUDGMENT

W.A.No.392 of 2024

 

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED 07.02.2024

                                                      CORAM

                                     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

                                                      AND

                                  THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

                                                W.A.No.392 of 2024

                                                     AND

                                              C.M.P.No.2643 of 2024

 

 

                T.Chitra Devi                                         .. Appellant

                                                       Vs.

 

                1.The Director of School Education

                DPI Campus, College Road

                Chennai 600 006

                2.The Chief Educational Officer

                Kancheepuram District

                Kancheepuram

                3.The District Educational Officer

                St. Thomas Mount, Chrompet

                Kancheepuram District

                4.The Secretary

                Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School

                East Tambaram

                Chennai 600 059

                5.Teachers Recruitment Board

                Rep. by its Chairman

                College Road, Nungambakkam

                Chennai 600 006

                6.Union of India

                Rep. by its Secretary to Government

                Department of School Educational and Literacy

                Ministry of Human Resource development

                217-C, Shastri Bhawan

                New Delhi 110 001

                7.National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)

                Rep. by its Member Secretary

                G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka

                New Delhi 110 075

                                             .. Respondents

                          Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order

                dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.34653 of 2019.

                                  For Appellant   : Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan

                                  For Respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru

                                                    Special Government Pleader (Education)

 

(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This writ appeal arises out of the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.34653 of 2019.

2.The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein, praying for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from insisting passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for her appointment as B.T. Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school on 15.06.2011 prior to issuance of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to continue to make payment of salary including annual increment, incentive and other service benefits.

3.It was the case of the appellant before the writ court that the fourth respondent school is a Government aided private school and she was appointed as B.T. Assistant (English) vide order dated 31.05.2011 and she joined duty in the 4th respondent School on 15.06.2011 against the sanctioned vacancy. While so, she was not paid any annual increment right from the date of her appointment and also not sanctioned incentive increment for her higher qualification. That apart, from August 2019, the 4th respondent had stopped the payment of salary to the appellant on the premise that she has to pass Teachers Eligibility Test (“TET” in short). According to the appellant, TET cannot be insisted in respect of appointments already made prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department dated 15.11.2011, and therefore, insisting upon passing of TET for paying salary and other benefits to the appellant is totally arbitrary and unreasonable.

4.Referring to the constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act” in short), Notification of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Government of India dated 31.03.2010 issued under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act and the Guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education, the Writ Court held that accepting the recommendation and the Notification issued by the NCTE, the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011, which makes it very clear that TET shall be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE and that, it has been stated in the G.O. that teachers appointed prior to the G.O. will be given five years time to acquire the minimum qualification. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, by order dated 29.04.2022, which is impugned herein, at the instance of the writ petitioner.

5.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for both sides, in union, submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by a common judgment passed by the very same Bench earlier in The Director of School Education D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai vs. M. Velayutham (W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., batch decided on 02.06.2023). The key issues for determination and also the resultant portion of the said judgment, read as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis "1.The key issues that arise for determination in these batch of writ appeals and writ petitions are:

(i) whether passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant/Graduate Teacher, from the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher (already in service).

(ii) whether non-possession/non-acquisition of a pass in TET by a teacher appointed prior to 29.07.2011 would affect his/her continuance in service and drawal of increment, without seeking for further promotion to the post of BT Assistant/Graduate Teacher."

WHETHER TET IS A NECESSARY MANDATE FOR TEACHERS APPOINTED IN MINORITY SCHOOLS 71.1. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petitions leading to these writ appeals would indicate that the fact that the teachers, in respect of whom approval of appointment was sought for by the school, did not possess TET pass eligibility was not a ground for refusal for grant of appointment approval, nor was it an issue raised before the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petitions. Only in the writ appeals, the State Government has raised an additional ground that the teachers whose appointment approval was sought for, did not possess TET. Notwithstanding the same, it is hereby clarified that by virtue of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India, [(2014) 8 SCC 1], wherein, it was held that the RTI Act, 2009 insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution, meaning thereby that the 2009 Act will not apply to minority schools, the eligibility of TET pass as required for appointment of teachers in non-minority schools, will not apply to minority schools. In other words, the approval of appointment of teachers in minority schools, both aided and unaided, cannot be refused or rejected on the ground that they do not possess a pass in TET. Further, this specific issue is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, cited supra, holds the filed as on today. For these reasons, the order of the Learned Judge in the writ petitions is affirmed and the above four writ appeals are dismissed.

"74. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the upshot of the above discussion is as under:

(a)Any teacher appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher or Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion.

(b)Any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher after 29.07.2011 must necessarily possess TET.

(c)Any appointment made to Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant, after 29.07.2011, whether by direct recruitment or promotion from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, or transfer, must necessarily possess TET. The principles laid down in this judgment will not have application to minority schools both aided and unaided as explained in paragraph no.71.1.

(d)The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service issued in GO (Ms.) No.13 School Education (S.E3(1)) Department dated 30.01.2020 insofar as it prescribes “a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)” only for direct recruitment for the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion thereto in Annexure-I (referred to in Rule 6) is struck down, thereby meaning that TET is mandatory/essential eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of BT Assistant even by promotion from Secondary Grade Teachers.

(e)The language employed in G.O. (Ms) No. 181 dated 15.11.2011 is to be read and understood to the effect that for continuance in service without promotional prospects, TET is not mandatory."

6.A reading of the above judgment would make it clear that any appointment made to Graduate Teacher / B.T. Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, wherein, the appellant / writ petitioner joined as B.T. Assistant on 15.06.2011 in the fourth respondent school, this court is of the opinion that she is entitled for continuance of service with annual increments and incentives, without a pass in TET. However, for future promotional aspects, the appellant must necessarily possess TET. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment dated 02.06.2023, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.

8.Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059

5.The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006

6.The Secretary to Government Union of India Department of School Educational and Literacy Ministry of Human Resource development 217-C, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 001

7.The Member Secretary National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka New Delhi 110 075 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R. MAHADEVAN, J.

AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

gya 07.02.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tamilnadu TET |Teachers Eligibility Test|Compulsory Education Act | RIght To Education Act | TNTET

http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/

http://tntet.blogspot.com/
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 / Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test

 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,

Read more...

Supreme Court : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने कड़े शब्दों में कहा की 730 दिन की चाइल्ड केयर लीव एक साथ ली जा सकती है , रूल में कहीं नहीं लिखा की लगातार नहीं ली जा सकती , सरकारी पक्ष ने बिना किसी कारण से लीव घटाकर 45 दिन कर दी , जो की नियम विरुद्ध है

Supreme Court : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने कड़े शब्दों में कहा की 730 दिन की चाइल्ड केयर लीव एक साथ ली जा सकती है , रूल में कहीं नहीं लिखा की लगातार नहीं ली जा सकती , सरकारी पक्ष ने बिना किसी कारण से लीव घटाकर 45 दिन कर दी , जो की नियम विरुद्ध है 


Supreme Court of India
Kakali Ghosh vs Chief Secy. A & N Administration

Author: ………………………………………………….J.
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, V. Gopala Gowda
                                                                             REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4506 OF 2014
                 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012)

KAKALI GHOSH                                             … APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

CHIEF SECRETARY,
ANDAMAN & NICOBAR
ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.                        … RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is whether a woman employee of the Central Government can ask for uninterrupted 730 days of Child Care Leave (hereinafter referred to as, - ‘the CCL’) under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’).

4. The appellant initially applied for CCL for six months commencing from 5th July, 2011 by her letter dated 16th May, 2011 to take care of her son who was in 10th standard. In her application, she intimated that she is the only person to look after her minor son and her mother is a heart patient and has not recovered from the shock due to the sudden demise of her father; her father-in-law is almost bed ridden and in such circumstances, she was not in a position to perform her duties effectively. While her application was pending, she was transferred to Campbell Bay in Nicobar District (Andaman and Nicobar) where she joined on 06th July, 2011. By her subsequent letter dated 14th February, 2012 she requested the competent authority to allow her to avail CCL for two years commencing from 21st May, 2012. However, the authorities allowed only 45 days of CCL by their Office Order No. 254 dated 16th March, 2012.

5. Aggrieved appellant then moved before the Tribunal in O.A. No.47/A&N/2012 which allowed the application by order dated 30th April, 2012 with following observation:-

“12. Thus O.A. is allowed. Respondents are accordingly directed to act strictly in accordance with DOPT O.M. dated 11.9.2008 as amended/clarified on 29.9.2008 and 18.11.2008, granting her CCL for the due period. No costs.”
6. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by respondents before the Calcutta High Court which by impugned judgment and order dated 18th September, 2012 while observing that leave cannot be claimed as a right, held as follows:

“It is evident from the provisions of sub r.(3) of r.43-C of the rules that CCL can be granted only according to the conditions mentioned in the sub-rule, and that one of the conditions is that CCL shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year. It means that CCL is not to be granted for a continuous period, but only in spells.
From the provisions of sub r.(3) of r.43-C of the rules it is also evident that a spell of CCL can be for as less as 16 days. This means that in a given case a person, though eligible to take CCL for a maximum period of 730 days, can be granted CCL in three spells in a calendar year for as less as 48 days.” The High Court further observed:
“Whether an eligible person should be granted CCL at all, and, if so, for what period, are questions to be decided by the competent authority; for the person is to work in the interest of public service, and ignoring public service exigencies that must prevail over private exigencies no leave can be granted.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no bar to grant uninterrupted 730 days of CCL under Rule 43-C. The High Court was not justified in holding that CCL can be granted in three spells in a calendar year as less as 48 days at a time. It was also contended that the respondents failed to record ground to deny uninterrupted CCL to appellant for the rest of the period.

8. Per contra, according to respondents, Rule 43-C does not permit uninterrupted CCL for 730 days as held by the High Court.

9. Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise of the above contentions, it will be necessary for us to refer the relevant Rule and the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time.

10. The Government of India from its Department of Personnel and Training vide O.M. No. 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 11th September, 2008 intimated that CCL can be granted for maximum period of 730 days during the entire service period to a woman government employee for taking care of up to two children, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“(1) Child Care Leave for 730 days.
*** Women employees having minor children may be granted Child Care Leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years (i.e. 730 days) during their entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc. Child Care Leave shall not be admissible if the child is eighteen years of age or older. During the period of such leave, the women employees shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. It may be availed of in more than one spell. Child Care Leave shall not be debited against the leave account. Child Care Leave may also be allowed for the third year as leave not due (without production of medical certificate). It may be combined with leave of the kind due and admissible.”
11. It was followed by Circular issued by Government of India from its Personnel and Training Department vide O.M. No. 13018/2/2008- Estt. (L), dated 29th September, 2008 by which it was clarified that CCL would be also admissible to a woman government employee to look after third child below 18 years of age, which is as follows:

“(2) Clarifications:-
The question as to whether child care leave would be admissible for the third child below the age of 18 years and the procedure for grant of child care leave have been under consideration in this Department, and it has now been decided as follows:-
i) Child Care Leave shall be admissible for two eldest surviving children only.
ii) The leave account for child care leave shall be maintained in the pro forma enclosed, and it shall be kept along with the Service Book of the Government Servant concerned.”
12. Rule 43-C was subsequently inserted by Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Notification No. F.No. 11012/1/2009- Estt. (L) dated 1st December, 2009, published in G.S.R. No. 170 in the Gazette of India dated 5th December, 2009 giving effect from 1st September, 2008 as quoted below:-

“43-C. Child Care Leave
1) A women Government servant having minor children below the age of eighteen years and who has no earned leave at her credit, may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years, i.e. 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc.
2) During the period of child care leave, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave.
3) Child care leave may be combined with leave of any other kind.
4) Notwithstanding the requirement of production of medical certificate contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, leave of the kind due and admissible (including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days and leave not due) up to a maximum of one year, if applied for, be granted in continuation with child care leave granted under sub-rule (1).
5) Child care leave may be availed of in more than one spell.
6) Child care leave shall not be debited against the leave account.”
13. On perusal of circulars and Rule 43-C, it is apparent that a woman government employee having minor children below 18 years can avail CCL for maximum period of 730 days i.e. during the entire service period for taking care of upto two children. The care of children is not for rearing the smaller child but also to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 43-C allows woman government employee to combine CCL with leave of any other kind. Under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 43- C leave of the kind due and admissible to woman government employee including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days; leave not due up to a maximum of one year, can be applied for and granted in continuation with CCL granted under Sub Rule (1). From plain reading of Sub Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 43-C it is clear that CCL even beyond 730 days can be granted by combining other leave if due. The finding of the High Court is based neither on Rule 43-C nor on guidelines issued by the Central Government. The Tribunal was correct in directing the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and Rule 43-C.

14. In the present case, the appellant claimed for 730 days of CCL at a stretch to ensure success of her son in the forthcoming secondary/senior examinations (10th/11th standard). It is not in dispute that son was minor below 18 years of age when she applied for CCL. This is apparent from the fact that the competent authority allowed 45 days of CCL in favour of the appellant. However, no reason has been shown by the competent authority for disallowing rest of the period of leave.

15. Leave cannot be claimed as of right as per Rule 7, which reads as follows:

“7. Right to leave (1) Leave cannot be claimed as of right.
(2) When the exigencies of public service so require, leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servant.” However, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 leave can be refused or revoked by the competent authority in the case of exigencies of public service.

16. In fact, Government of India from its Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training all the time encourage the government employees to take leave regularly, preferably annually by its Circular issued by the Government of India M.H.A.O.M. No. 6/51/60-Ests. (A), dated 25th January, 1961, reiterated vide Government of India letter dated 22/27th March, 2001. As per those circulars where all applications for leave cannot, in the interest of public service, be granted at the same time, the leave sanctioning authority may draw up phased programme for the grant of leave to the applicants by turn with due regard to the principles enunciated under the aforesaid circulars.

17. In the present case the respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 730 days continuous leave. The grounds taken by them and as held by High Court cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and affirm the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment.

19. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid directions. No costs.

………………………………………………….J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) ……………………………………………….J.

(V. GOPALA GOWDA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 15, 2014.

Read more...

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - बी एड टेट वालों के लिए राहत की खबर - 72825 शिक्षकों की अकादमिक अंको से भर्ती विज्ञापन 07.12.12 को 15 वे संसोधन के तहत भरा जा सकता है , देखें सुप्रीम कोर्ट का आदेश

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - - 



बी एड टेट वालों के लिए राहत की खबर - 72825 शिक्षकों की अकादमिक अंको से भर्ती विज्ञापन 07.12.12 को 15 वे संसोधन के तहत भरा जा सकता है  , देखें सुप्रीम कोर्ट का आदेश 

लेकिन इस 07.12.12 दिनांकित विज्ञापन के तहत भर्ती को जारी रखना राज्य सरकार पर निर्भर करेगा 


15 वे संसोधन की बहाली की साथ ही 72825 शिक्षकों की अकादमिक अंको से भर्ती का 
विज्ञापन दिनांक 07.12.12 जीवित हो गया है हालाँकि इसके तहत भर्ती को जारी रखने के लिए राज्य सरकार को छूट दी गई , गेंद अब राज्य सरकार के पाले में और इच्छा पर निर्भर 


देखें सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश का महत्वपूर्ण हिस्सा :-

 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
 

Read more...

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - धमाकेदार खबर : अधकचरा ज्ञान परोसने वालों के लिए ख़ास खबर ये है सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सिर्फ यह आदेश दिया है की टेट वेटेज मेंडेटरी नहीं है , NCTE ने बताया की टेट वेटेज सम्बन्धी उसकी गाइड लाइंस एडवाजरी हैं न की बाध्यकारी

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - - 



धमाकेदार खबर : अधकचरा ज्ञान परोसने वालों के लिए ख़ास खबर ये है सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सिर्फ यह आदेश दिया है की टेट वेटेज मेंडेटरी नहीं है , NCTE ने बताया की 
टेट वेटेज सम्बन्धी उसकी गाइड लाइंस एडवाजरी हैं न की बाध्यकारी 

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने ला के अनुसार भर्ती करने को कहा है मसलन यह राज्य सरकार के ऊपर है की वह कितना वेटेज दे पर वेटेज देना बाध्यकारी नहीं है और टेट परीक्षा को महज क्वालिफाइंग परीक्षा मानकर भी भर्ती की जा सकती है | 

जब राज्य सरकार (अधिकृत संस्था ) ने टेट मेरिट द्वारा भर्ती विज्ञापन को रद्द कर टेट को क्वालिफाइंग मानकर भर्ती शुरू की , वह कर सकती है क्योंकि 15 वं संसोधन बहाल हो चुका है और इसीलिए 72825 टेट मेरिट से भर्ती पर रोक लगाने के साथ बची हुई भर्ती नए विज्ञापन के साथ कर सकती है 
(हमारे अनुसार नए विज्ञापन में टेट वेटेज दे या न दे राज्य सरकार की मर्जी है , क्योंकि यह बाध्यकारी नहीं रहा )

कारण था कि राज्य सरकार यानी सपा सरकार ने 72825 टेंट मेरिट वाला विज्ञापन रद्द कर दिया था, और सपा सरकार वाला विज्ञापन ncte नियमानुसार सही है क्योंकि टेट वेटज बाध्यकारी नहीं। नए विज्ञापन अकादमिक से 72825 भर्ती बहाल होते ही पुराने का अस्तित्व समाप्त हो गया। लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट के अंतरिम आदेश के तहत जो भर्तियां हो गयी उन पर कोई असर नहीं होगा

अब नया नियोक्ता भाजपा सरकार है, वह वेटज दे या न दे, लेकिन यह बाध्यकारी नहीं है




सुप्रीम कोर्ट में टेट 2011 बदनाम हुई , संजय मोहन इत्यादि का नाम लेकर | 

हालाँकि यह कहीं नहीं आया की कोई टेट 2011 परीक्षार्थी इस परीक्षा में गड़बड़ करते पकड़ा गया |  जबकि पूरी परीक्षा को गौर से देखा जाए तो यह एक बेहतरीन पारदर्शी परीक्षा थी 

12 , 15 , 16 संसोधन जो भी हों | 

हमारे ब्लॉग का सिर्फ यह कहना है कि भ्रामक एक तरफा जानकारी देने से हमारा ब्लॉग दूर है , और सदैव सही जानकारियां देता आया है | 
किसी अकादमिक , टेट मेरिट या शिक्षा मित्रो से कोई लगाव या द्वेष नहीं है , बस सही जानकारी लोगो को मिले यही उद्देश्य है 



 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
 

Read more...

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - देखें शिक्षा मित्र पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट आदेश के महत्वपूर्ण आदेश के हिस्से , सभी शिक्षा मित्रों का समायोजन निरस्त टेट पास शिक्षा मित्रों को भी राहत नहीं, राज्य सरकार की दया पर शिक्षा मित्र वापस बन सकते हैं , आगामी दो भर्तियों में पर्याप्त योग्यता हासिल करने के बाद शिक्षक बनने हेतु आवेदन कर सकते हैं , राज्य सरकार उम्र में छूट व अनुभव का वेटेज दे सकती है

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - - 

देखें शिक्षा मित्र पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट आदेश के महत्वपूर्ण आदेश के हिस्से , सभी शिक्षा मित्रों का समायोजन निरस्त टेट पास शिक्षा मित्रों को भी  राहत नहीं, राज्य सरकार की दया पर शिक्षा मित्र वापस बन सकते हैं , आगामी दो भर्तियों में पर्याप्त योग्यता हासिल करने के बाद शिक्षक बनने हेतु आवेदन कर सकते हैं , राज्य सरकार उम्र  में छूट व अनुभव का वेटेज दे सकती है 

 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
 

Read more...

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - शिक्षा मित्र समायोजन रद्द , वापस शिक्षा मित्र बनेंगे अगर राज्य सरकार चाहे , इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट का आदेश पूर्णतया बहाल , देखें मुख्य बिंदु सुप्रीम कोर्ट आदेश का

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - - 
शिक्षा मित्र समायोजन रद्द , वापस शिक्षा मित्र बनेंगे अगर राज्य सरकार चाहे , इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट का आदेश पूर्णतया बहाल , देखें मुख्य बिंदु सुप्रीम कोर्ट आदेश का 

 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
 

Read more...

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Supreme Court Judgement on PG Base B Ed Qualification , Graduation Below 45% marks -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Supreme Court Judgement on PG Base B Ed Qualification , Graduation Below 45% marks - 



1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9732 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14386 OF
2015)
Neeraj Kumar Rai and ors. …Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 25th February, 2015
in Neeraj Kumar Rai and ors. versus State of U.P. and
ors1
.
2. The High Court repelled the challenge to the validity of notification dated 29th July, 2011 issued by the National Council
for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 23 (1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE). The
challenge was raised on the ground of arbitrariness leading to 1 2015(2) ADJ 795, 2015(4)ALJ 94
2 violation of Article 14. Under the impugned notification,
requirement of 50% marks in graduation was made mandatory apart from other qualifications for appointment of teachers in
schools. The said requirement was not mandatory earlier for those who had 50% marks in post graduation at the time when they
took admission to the B.Ed., which was also the relevant qualification for appointment as teacher in terms of notification
dated 23rd August, 2010 under Section 23 of the RTE. Further contention of the appellants was that even according to the NCTE
those who had 50% marks in post graduation, and were eligible for admission to B.Ed. on that basis, could be treated as qualified
in terms of the said notification. The High Court held that once the petitioners are not covered by the notification dated 29th July,
2011, the stand of the NCTE to the contrary could not be relied upon.

3. Thus, the question for consideration is whether the candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite
percentage in post graduation and are otherwise covered by notification dated 23rd August, 2010, will stand excluded only on
3
the ground that their marks in graduation were less than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July, 2011.

4. The case of the appellants is that they had the post graduation and B.Ed. qualifications. They also had the TET
qualification. In post-graduation their marks are more than 50%.

The NCTE is a statutory body under the NCTE Act to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system. It lays down qualification for recruitment of teachers and also criteria for admission to training in teacher education. The NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of
Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 prescribe qualification for recruitment of teachers. The said regulations were amended from
time to time. Regulations were also framed for admission to teacher education programmes including for admission to B.Ed.
The said regulations prescribed requirement of 45% / 50% either in graduation or in post graduation for admission to the B.Ed.
which the appellants possessed. Only the impugned notification dated 29th July, 2011 prescribed requirement of 50% marks in
graduation which was earlier optional for those who had 50% marks in post graduation. On that basis, the State of Uttar
4
Pradesh declared candidates who were B.Ed. and TET and were otherwise qualified in terms of the qualifications laid down by the
NCTE for appointment of teachers as ineligible. Some persons who were earlier appointed but their services were later
terminated. The claim of similarly placed candidates was supported by the NCTE and was also upheld by the High Courts of
Rajasthan and Uttarakhand which judgments were operative and had become final.

5. To appreciate the submissions reference may briefly be made to relevant notifications. The 2003 amendment to the 2001 regulations provides for requirement of graduation along with B.Ed or its equivalent without any minimum marks in graduation.
The 2007 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading to B.Ed. require 45% marks either in Bachelor’s degree or in Master’s degree or any other qualification
equivalent thereto. The 2009 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to B.Ed. do not provide for any minimum percentage of marks in Bachelor’s degree. However, in the NCTE notification dated 23rd August, 2010 the requirement of prescribed
5
percentage of marks in graduation was laid down on which basis the said requirement was laid down in the impugned notification
dated 29th July, 2011denying eligibility to the appellants.
6. It is submitted that similarly placed candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
3964 of 2011 etc. titled Sushil Sompura and Ors. versus State (Education) and Ors. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 20th May, 2011 upheld their stand and observed:-
“The relief prayed by the petitioners stands satisfied in view of the agreement expressed on behalf of NCTE to the effect that in case they
have passed B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., Senior Secondary or its equivalent qualification and obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.Ed., B.EI.Ed., D.Ed. etc.
as mentioned in para-1 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010, prior to the prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE in Bachelor’s degree or Master’s degree
etc. or any other qualification equivalent thereto vide notification dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, the minimum qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case
may be, in the Bachelor’s degree or Master’s degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, shall not be insisted as stated by Mr. Kuldeep Mathur,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE on being instructed by Regional Director, NCTE. Thus, the major grievance of
 the petitioners that their qualifications of B.Ed. B.EI.Ed. etc. mentioned in para 1 are being derecognized with retrospective effect when there was no prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 45% or 50%, as the case may be,stands redressed in view of the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE. It has been further stated by the learned
counsel for the NCTE that for the first time, de-novo qualifications were prescribed by the NCTE vide Notification dated 27.9.2007 and further, qualifications were prescribed vide Notification dated 31.8.2009 and in case admission has been taken by the incumbents in any of the courses of B.Ed. B.El.Ed. etc. as
mentioned in para-1 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 prior to aforesaid dates, they shall not insist for having 45% or 50% marks, as the case
may be, in qualifying examination for aforesaid courses. Thus, respondents have to allow aforesaid incumbents in TET examination, 2011.”
(emphasis added)
7. Again, similar issue was raised before the High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No. 772(SS) of 2011 etc. titled Baldev Singh and ors. versus State of Uttarakhand and ors. The High Court in its judgment dated 20th August, 2011, after noticing the observations in the Rajasthan High Court
judgment, observed:
“Apparently therefore the restriction of a minimum percentage of marks in graduation (45% or 50% as the case might be) is not going to be enforced by NCTE, as it is evident from the above paragraph, as these were the instructions
 of the Regional Director, NCTE to its counsel before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. The
counsel representing NCTE Mr. Sudhir Singh has fairly submitted before this Court that he also gets his instructions from the same Regional
Director, NCTE, yet there are no such instructions with him. That being the factual position, we leave it at that.
However, even assuming for the sake of argument that the above decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court does not help the case of the petitioners, yet this Court is of a considered view, as it has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, that such a restriction (of having minimum percentage in graduation) is
both unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court declares such condition of asking a
minimum percentage of marks in graduation from those candidates who are B.Ed. qualified in NCTE notification dated 23.8.2010 and subsequent State Government Order dated 29.4.2011 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court directs the respondents to permit the petitioners to
appear in TET examination treating them to be qualified under Clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 and State Government Order dated 29.4.2011.”
8. Mr. AS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the NCTE fairly stated that the appellants may be treated at par with those covered by the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts judgments which have been accepted by the NCTE. 

9. In view of fair stand of learned Additional Solicitor General and the view of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, we do not find any reason to deny similar relief to the appellants. No doubt, as rightly held by the High Court the NCTE ought to have issued a clarification by way of a supplementary notification but
the NCTE may now do so within one month from today.
Accordingly, we direct that if the appellants or any other similarly placed persons are entitled to any further relief in terms of judgments of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, they will be at liberty to put forward their claim before the concerned authorities who may take a decision thereon in accordance with
law within one month. We have not examined any such claim in these proceedings except what has been stated hereinabove.
10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
…………………………………….J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
…………………………………….J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
25th July, 2017.



 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
 

Read more...