/* remove this */

Sunday, June 15, 2014

UP POLICE CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT RESULT NEWS

UP POLICE CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT RESULT NEWS



News Sabhaar : Hindustan Paper(15.6.14)
************

 आखिर कब आयेगा सिपाही सीधी भर्ती परीक्षा का रिजल्ट

लखनऊ : सूबे में 41610 सिपाहियों की सीधी भर्ती के लिए हुई प्रारंभिक लिखित परीक्षा का रिजल्ट लेटलतीफी का शिकार होता जा रहा है। प्रारंभिक लिखित परीक्षा का रिजल्ट जारी करने से पहले की सभी औपचारिकताएं उप्र पुलिस भर्ती एवं प्रोन्नति बोर्ड पूरी कर चुका है, पर रिजल्ट जारी करने में हो रही देरी पर बोर्ड का कोई भी जिम्मेदार बोलने को तैयार नहीं है। रिजल्ट जारी करने में हो रही अनावश्यक देरी बोर्ड के लिए मुसीबत का सबब भी बन सकती है। हाल ही में कम्प्यूटर आपरेटरों की सीधी भर्ती की परीक्षा का रिजल्ट जारी हुए बिना ही बोर्ड की वेबसाइट पर गलती से अपलोड हो गया था जिससे पुलिस महकमे में खासी खलबली मच गयी थी। पुलिस महकमे में 41610 सिपाहियों की सीधी भर्ती के लिए प्रारंभिक लिखित परीक्षा गत 15 दिसम्बर को हुई थी। अधिकारियों ने उस दौरान दावा किया था कि तीन माह के भीतर इसका रिजल्ट जारी कर दिया जायेगा। रिजल्ट जारी हो पाता कि इससे पहले ही लोकसभा चुनाव की तिथियों की घोषणा हो गयी। इसके बाद यह कयास लगाया जाने लगा कि चुनाव नतीजा घोषित होने के बाद ही रिजल्ट जारी किया जायेगा। बीस दिन पहले बोर्ड द्वारा आयोजित कम्प्यूटर आपरेटर सीधी भर्ती का रिजल्ट जारी होने से पहले ही गलती से भर्ती बोर्ड की वेबसाइट पर अपलोड हो गया था जिसे लेकर अधिकारियों में खलबली मच गयी थी। भर्ती बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष एके गुप्त ने तब दावा किया था कि वह एक सप्ताह के भीतर सिपाही सीधी भर्ती की परीक्षा का रिजल्ट जारी कर देंगे। फिलहाल, यह दावा अभी पूरा होता नहीं दिख रहा है। रिजल्ट में देरी उन बीस लाख अभ्यर्थियों में असंतोष पैदा कर रही है जो सिपाही बनने का ख्वाब पूरा होने का इंतजार कर रहे हैं।

सभी औपचारिकताएं पूरी होने के बाद भी जारी नहीं हो रहा परिणाम छोटी सी चूक भी पड़ सकती है भर्ती बोर्ड को भारी हाल ही में कम्प्यूटर आपरेटर परीक्षा का रिजल्ट जारी होने के पहले ही हो गया था अपलोड

    News sabhaar : rashtriyasahara.com (15.6.14)


Read more...

RECRUITMENT NEWS CALENDAR JUNE 2014

Sarkari Naukri Damad India. Latest Upadted Indian Govt Jobs - http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com
RECRUITMENT NEWS CALENDAR JUNE 2014

जून
● 15 जून – आर.आर.बी. लोको पायलट तथा टेक्नीशियन ग्रेड-III परीक्षा
● 15 जून – मध्य प्रदेश जेल विभाग प्रहरी परीक्षा–2014
● 22 जून – सी.एस.आई.आर. – यू.जी.सी. नेट परीक्षा–2014
● 22 जून – पश्चिम बंगाल कर्मचारी चयन आयोग खाद्य उप-निरीक्षक परीक्षा
● 22 जून – छत्तीसगढ़ व्यवहार न्यायाधीश (प्रवेश स्तर) प्रारम्भिक परीक्षा, 2014
● 22 जून – एस.एस.सी. सबइंस्पेक्टर्स दिल्ली पुलिस, केन्द्रीय सशस्त्र पुलिस बल तथा असिस्टेंट सबइंस्पेक्टर केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल (CISF) परीक्षा–2014 (प्रथम प्रश्न पत्र)
● 22 जून – जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय प्रवेश परीक्षा–2014-15 (कक्षा-IX)
● 22 जून –मध्य प्रदेश उत्कृष्ट विद्यालय / मॉडल स्कूल प्रवेश चयन परीक्षा
● 29 जून – मध्य प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग राज्य सेवा प्रारम्भिक परीक्षा–2013
● 29 जून – यू.जी.सी. नेट / जे.आर.एफ. परीक्षा जून 2014
● जून – भारतीय वायु सेना ग्रुप ‘X’ (तकनीकी) चयन परीक्षा
● जून – एस.एस.सी. संयुक्त स्नातक स्तर परीक्षा–2014 (चरण-I)
● जून – आर. ए. एस. (मुख्य) परीक्षा–2013
● जून – भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रोबेशनरी ऑफीसर्स भर्ती परीक्षा
जुलाई
● 6 जुलाई – मध्य प्रदेश उच्चतर न्यायिक सेवा (एन्ट्री लेवल) बार से सीधी भर्ती परीक्षा–2014
● 13 जुलाई – मध्य प्रदेश जनरल नर्सिंग ट्रैनिंग सलेक्शन प्री-नर्सिंग सलेक्शन टेस्ट (GNTST and PNST) 2014
● 13 जुलाई – केन्द्रीय सशस्त्र पुलिस बल (सहायक कमाण्डेंट) परीक्षा–2014
● जुलाई – उत्तराखण्ड डी.एल.एड. प्रवेश परीक्षा, 2014 (द्विवर्षीय पाठ्यक्रम हेतु)
● जुलाई – राजस्थान कोष एवं लेखा विभाग, कनिष्ठ लेखाकार / तहसील राजस्व लेखाकार परीक्षा–2013
● जुलाई–अगस्त – स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया लिपिकीय संवर्ग (सहायक) भर्ती परीक्षा (ऑनलाइन अन्तिम तिथि : 29 जून, 2014)
अगस्त
● 24 अगस्त – सिविल सर्विसेज (प्रारम्भिक) परीक्षा–2014 (ऑनलाइन अन्तिम तिथि : 30 जून, 2014)
● 24 अगस्त – सीमा सुरक्षा बल असिस्टेंट सब-इंस्पेक्टर (रेडियो मैकेनिक), हैड कॉस्टेबिल (रेडियो ऑपरेटर / फिटर) परीक्षा–2014 (अन्तिम तिथि : 7 जुलाई, 2014)
● 30-31 अगस्त – एस.एस.सी. संयुक्त स्नातक स्तर परीक्षा–2014 (चरण-II)
● अगस्त – राजस्थान कारागार विभाग, सहायक कारापाल परीक्षा
सितम्बर
● 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27 सितम्बर – क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक सम्मिलित लिखित परीक्षा (CWE-III)
● 14 सितम्बर – एस.एस.सी. स्टेनोग्राफर (ग्रेड ‘सी’ एण्ड ‘डी’) परीक्षा–2014 (अन्तिम तिथि : 27 जून, 2014)
● 21 सितम्बर – एस.एस.सी. सबइंस्पेक्टर्स दिल्ली पुलिस केन्द्रीय सशस्त्र पुलिस बल तथा असिस्टेंट सबइंस्पेक्टर केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल (CISF) परीक्षा–2014 (द्वितीय प्रश्न पत्र)
● 21 सितम्बर – राजस्थान सेट (SET) परीक्षा–2013
अक्टूबर
● अक्टूबर / नवम्बर – बैंक प्रोबेशनरी ऑफिसर्स / मैनेजमेंट ट्रेनी सम्मिलित लिखित परीक्षा (CWE-IV)
नवम्बर
● नवम्बर – राजस्थान माध्यमिक शिक्षा विभाग पी.टी.आई. ग्रेड-III परीक्षा–2013
दिसम्बर
● दिसम्बर – बैंक लिपिकीय संवर्ग सम्मिलित लिखित परीक्षा (CWE-IV)



Published at http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com (Click on the Labels below for more similar Jobs)
Read more...

Shiksha Mitra Samayojan News : Samayojan from 30 June 2014

Shiksha Mitra  Samayojan News : Samayojan from 30 June 2014



News Sabhaar : Hindustan Paper (15.6.14)
Read more...

Interview Call Letter for PASUDHAN PRASHAR ADHIKARI

 Interview Call Letter for PASUDHAN PRASHAR ADHIKARI

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT
Result Declared for the Interview (PASUDHAN PRASHAR ADHIKARI)


 पशुधन प्रसार अधिकारी पद हेतु नियुक्ति से पूर्व दो वर्षीय प्रशिक्षण के लिये चयन :

शासनादेश सं0- 2913/37-1-2013-2(6)/2013, दिनांक 27 अगस्त, 2013 के क्रम में पशुधन प्रसार अधिकारियों के रिक्त 1198 पदों पर नियुक्ति :
पशुधन प्रसार अधिकारी पद का वेतनमान - रू0 5200-20200-ग्रेड पे रू0 2800


पशु पालन अधिकारी का रिज़ल्ट घोषित हो चुका है
और इंटरव्यू के काल लेटर अभ्यर्थीयों को भेज दिए / भेजे जा  रहे हैं


See Result Here :  http://indianexamresults.co.in/ViewSelStu2014.aspx




 

इंटरव्यू इस महीने के अंतिम दिनों में होने जा रहे है ,
कुछ सूत्र बता रहे हैं कि इंटरव्यू 26 जून से 4-5 जुलाई के बीच चलने वाले हैं



पशु पालन भर्ती के इंटरव्यू में शामिल होने जा रहे अभ्यर्थी फेस बुक पर इस ग्रुप को ज्वाइन कर सकते हैं : https://www.facebook.com/groups/PASUDHAN.PRASHAR.ADHIKARI/


Read more...

BTC Entrance Test Result Declared : बीटीसी प्रवेश परीक्षा का रिजल्ट घोषित

 BTC Entrance Test Result Declared : बीटीसी प्रवेश परीक्षा का रिजल्ट घोषित

इलाहाबाद : डॉ.एएच रिजवी डिग्री कालेज की ओर से आयोजित बीटीसी पाठ्यक्रम की प्रवेश परीक्षा का रिजल्ट शनिवार को घोषित कर दिया गया। सफल अभ्यर्थियों को इसकी सूचना भेज दी गई है। उन्हें 16 जून को नामांकन कराने के लिए कहा गया है। छात्रों को शैक्षणिक प्रमाण पत्रों की मूल और फोटो प्रति, चार फोटोग्राफ और फीस लानी है। सीट रिक्त रहने पर कालेज की ओर से प्रतीक्षा सूची जारी की जाएगी

News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala
Read more...

Shiksha Mitra Mandey : मानदेय के लिए शिक्षामित्रों ने किया धरना-प्रदर्शन

Shiksha Mitra Mandey : मानदेय के लिए शिक्षामित्रों ने किया धरना-प्रदर्शन

Shiksha Mitra News Samayojan, Shiksha Mitra

जमालपुर (मीरजापुर) : ब्लाक मुख्यालय पर बुधवार को सामाजिक, आर्थिक एवं जातिगत गणना का मानदेय न मिलने से क्षुब्ध शिक्षामित्रों ने एक दिवसीय धरना-प्रदर्शन किया। शिक्षामित्रों ने आरोप लगाया कि 2012 में मानदेय वितरण के लिए धन उपलब्ध कराया जा चुका है लेकिन अधिकारियों की मनमानी से मानदेय वितरण में हीलाहवाली की जा रही है।

इस दौरान पूर्व प्रधानाचार्य पन्नालाल सिंह ने कहा कि प्रशासन शिक्षामित्रों का उत्पीड़न कर रहा है जिसे कतई बर्दाश्त नहीं किया जाएगा। अगर मानदेय वितरण तत्काल न कराया गया तो अनेक सामाजिक संगठन लामबंद होकर शिक्षामित्रों के पक्ष में आंदोलन करेंगे। शिक्षामित्रों ने जिलाधिकारी को संबोधित चार सूत्रीय मांग पत्र खंड विकास अधिकारी को सौंपा जिसमें मानदेय का ब्याज सहित भुगतान ब्लाक मुख्यालय पर ही करने के साथ दो वर्ष से धन उपलब्ध रहने के बाद भी भुगतान न करने वाले अधिकारियों को दंडित करने की मांग किया। अंत में शिक्षामित्रों ने चेताया अगर 20 जून तक भुगतान न कराया गया तो सभी शिक्षामित्र संगठन लामबंद होकर जिला मुख्यालय पर आंदोलन को विवश होंगे।

कार्यक्रम की अध्यक्षता आनंद कुमार आजाद, संचालन संजय कुमार ने किया। कार्यक्रम को जिलाध्यक्ष सुनील कुमार पटेल, आदर्श शिक्षामित्र वेलफेयर एसोसिएशन के अध्यक्ष अजयधर दुबे, सुमन्त गुप्ता, सुनीता कुमारी, रेनू सिंह, रामदेव यादव, संध्या कुमारी, रामगोपाल यादव, वंशबहादुर सिंह सहित तमाम शिक्षामित्रों ने संबोधित किया

News Source / Sabhaar : Jagran (11.6.14)

Read more...

Shiksha Mitra Samayojan News :शिक्षामित्रों की नौकरी पक्की, 30 जून को मेरिट

Shiksha Mitra  Samayojan News :शिक्षामित्रों की नौकरी पक्की, 30 जून को मेरिट

 

Shiksha Mitra News Samayojan, Shiksha Mitra, UPTETAllahabad Highcourt Triple Bench Order, NCTE, RTE, 

इस तरह होगा समायोजन


बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय ने पहले चरण में 58 हजार शिक्षामित्रों के समायोजन का कार्यक्रम शासन को भेज दिया है।

इसके अनुसार 30 जून तक मेरिट लिस्ट तैयार हो जाएगी। इसके बाद 7 जुलाई तक जिलेवार विज्ञापन दिए जाएंगे। 14 व 15 जुलाई को काउंसिलिंग होगी।

31 जुलाई तक नियुक्ति पत्र दे दिए जाएंगे। महिला शिक्षामित्रों को तीन स्कूलों का विकल्प दिया जाएगा।

निदेशालय सूत्रों के मुताबिक, अगर शासन स्तर पर बदलाव न होने की स्थिति में यही फाइनल कार्यक्रम होगा

कुल 1.70 लाख शिक्षामित्रों का होगा समायोजन


प्रदेश के कुल 1.70 लाख शिक्षामित्रों का समायोजन होगा। जिसके पहले चरण में 58,826 शिक्षा मित्रों को सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर समायोजित किया जाएगा।

सरकार के निर्देश पर बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने पिछले दिनों दूरस्थ शिक्षा के माध्यम से दो वर्षीय बीटीसी प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करने वाले शिक्षा मित्रों को सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर समायोजित करने संबंधी आदेश जारी कर दिया था।

बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय में इस संबंध में उच्चाधिकारियों की बैठक में तय किया गया कि शिक्षा मित्रों को बंद और एकल स्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापक बनाया जाएगा।

प्रदेश में मौजूदा समय बंद 4879 और 25,923 एकल (एक शिक्षक वाले) स्कूल हैं। बीएसए से एक बार फिर से इन स्कूलों का सर्वे कराया जाएगा, ताकि इसका सत्यापन हो जाए

हाईकोर्ट भी पहुंचा था मामला


शिक्षा मित्रों ने हाईकोर्ट की इलाहाबाद और लखनऊ बेंच में कैवियेट दाखिल किया था।

उत्तर प्रदेश प्राथमिक शिक्षा मित्र संघ के अध्यक्ष गाजी इमाम आला और आदर्श शिक्षा मित्र वेलफेयर एसोसिएशन के अध्यक्ष जितेंद्र कुमार शाही ने बताया कि शिक्षा मित्र लगातार 12 वर्षों से परिषदीय स्कूलों में पढ़ाने का काम कर रहे हैं।

राज्य सरकार उन्हें सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर समायोजित करना चाहती है, लेकिन कुछ लोग इसका विरोध कर रहे थे।

इसलिए कैवियेट दाखिल कर हाईकोर्ट से अनुरोध किया गया कि यदि उनके समायोजन के खिलाफ कोई मामला आता है, तो कोई भी निर्णय लेने से पहले उनका पक्ष भी सुना जाए

हुआ था नियमों में संशोधन


गौरतलब है कि समायोजन के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा अध्यापक सेवा नियमावली 1981 में संशोधन किया जा गया था।

लोकसभा चुनाव की आचार संहिता लागू होने के चलते इस पर निर्णय नहीं हो पाया था।

सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा नीतीश्वर कुमार ने आचार संहिता समाप्त होते ही बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री के पास फाइल भेजी थी

News Source / Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (15.06.2014)

Read more...

UP Police Recruitment : पुलिस में जल्द ही होगी बंपर भर्ती

पुलिस में जल्द ही होगी बंपर भर्ती
610 हजार दारोगा, सिपाही और चौकीदार के पदों पर भर्ती के निर्देश



UP Recruitment News, UP Police SI Sub-Inspector Recruitment, UP Police, UP Police Constable Recruitment, 

 लखनऊ : बदहाल कानून व्यवस्था का ‘दाग’ धोने में जुटी राज्य सरकार ने 10 हजार उपनिरीक्षकों, सिपाहियों और चौकीदारों की भर्ती प्रक्रिया जल्द पूरी करने का निर्देश दिया है। अब प्रत्येक माह के दूसरे और चौथे शनिवार को हर थाने पर ‘सदभावना दिवस’ पंचायत अनिवार्य रूप से लगाई जाएगी। जमीन विवाद की छोटी से छोटी शिकायत पर भी उपजिलाधिकारी और पुलिस क्षेत्रधिकारी मौका मुआयना कर निस्तारण करें। इसमें शिथिलता मिलने पर दोनों अधिकारी निलंबित होंगे।

ये बातें राज्य के मुख्य सचिव आलोक रंजन ने शनिवार को पुलिस अधिकारियों के साथ कानून व्यवस्था की समीक्षा के दौरान कही। इससे पहले शनिवार को मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव ने सपा मुखिया मुलायम सिंह यादव की मौजूदगी में अधिकारियों को कानून व्यवस्था को दुरुस्त करने की कड़े शब्दों में हिदायत दी थी। मुख्य सचिव ने बताया कि आबादी और पुलिस मानक के हिसाब से कई हजार सिपाहियों और उपनिरीक्षकों के 10 हजार पद खाली हैं। जिन पर भर्ती के लिए पुलिस भर्ती बोर्ड के अधिकारियों को निर्देश दे दिए गए हैं। मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव ने इस पर सहमति जता दी है।

मुख्य सचिव ने बताया कि थानों को अत्याधुनिक सुविधा उपलब्ध कराई जाएगी। हर थाने में सीसीटीवी कैमरा लगेगा। पुलिस को जीपीएस सुविधा से लैस गाड़ियां मुहैया कराई जाएंगी। मुख्य सचिव ने पुलिस आधुनिकीकरण पर आला अफसरों से 15 दिन में प्लान मांगा है। मुख्य सचिव ने बताया कि डीजीपी से कहा गया है कि महिला उत्पीड़न की वारदात पर सख्ती से अंकुश के लिए जल्द महिला सेल में कामकाज शुरू

News Source : Jagran Paper (15.6.14)
Read more...

UP Bus Conductor Recruitment : रोडवेज में 1,690 कंडक्टरों की जल्द होगी भर्ती

UP Bus Conductor Recruitment : रोडवेज में 1,690 कंडक्टरों की जल्द होगी भर्ती

लखनऊ : उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सड़क परिवहन निगम यानी रोडवेज में 1,690 कंडक्टरों की भर्ती होने जा रही है। भर्ती निगम के नियमित पदों पर होगी। चयन की प्रक्रिया जुलाई से शुरू होने की उम्मीद है। निगम मुख्यालय में भर्ती के मापदंड तय हो चुके हैं जिसका आदेश जल्द ही जारी होगा।

मायावती सरकार में चार साल पहले कंडक्टरों के 2,600 पद स्वीकृत हुए थे। उस समय भर्ती नहीं की जा सकी थी। अब इनमें से 910 पद संविदा कंडक्टरों एवं अप्रेंटिस करने वाले को आरक्षित कर दिए गए हैं। बचे 1,690 पदों पर जुलाई के पहले हफ्ते से क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक स्तर से कंडक्टरों की भर्ती की प्रक्रिया शुरू होगी। इस पद के लिए शैक्षिक योग्यता इंटरमीडिएट होगी। लिखित परीक्षा पास करने वाले आवेदकों का साक्षात्कार होगा। साक्षात्कार में सफल आवेदकों की सहायक क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक नियुक्ति करेंगे। प्रबंध निदेशक की तरफ से चार दिन के भीतर भर्ती का आदेश एवं मापदंड सर्कुलर क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधकों को भेजा जाएगा। कौन क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक कितने पदों पर भर्ती करेगा उसका उल्लेख आदेश मेें होगा।


शीघ्र भर्ती करने का आदेश
परिवहन निगम में लंबे अरसे से खाली चल रहे नियमित कंडक्टरों के पदों पर जुलाई से भर्ती की प्रक्रिया शुरू होगी। प्रदेश भर के क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधकों को शीघ्र भर्ती करने का आदेश जारी होगा। कंडक्टरों का चयन क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधकों की अगुवाई में चयन समिति करेगी।
-मुकेश कुमार मेश्राम, प्रबंध निदेशक परिवहन निगम

News Source / Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (15.06.2014)

Read more...

UP Recruitment News : 16,432 पंचायत सहायकों की होगी भर्ती

UP Recruitment News : 16,432 पंचायत सहायकों की होगी भर्ती
राजीव गांधी पंचायत सशक्तीकरण योजना में मिली मंजूरी


लखनऊ। कई-कई ग्राम पंचायतों का काम देख रहे ग्राम पंचायत अधिकारियों (पंचायत सेक्रेटरी) व ग्राम विकास अधिकारियों (वीडीओ) का बोझ हल्का करने की तैयारी है। पंचायतीराज विभाग ने पंचायतों का काम देखने वाले सभी 16,432 पंचायत सेक्रेटरी के सहयोग के लिए एक-एक पंचायत सहायक की नियुक्ति का फैसला किया है। संविदा के आधार पर होने वाली नियुक्तियों के लिए केंद्र सरकार ने राजीव गांधी पंचायत सशक्तीकरण योजना (आरजीपीएसवाई) के तहत छह महीने का मानदेय भी मंजूर कर दिया है।
प्रदेश में ग्राम पंचायतों के कामकाज की जिम्मेदारी ग्राम्य विकास विभाग से नियुक्त होने वाले ग्राम्य विकास अधिकारियों और पंचायतीराज विभाग से नियुक्त ग्राम पंचायत अधिकारियों पर है। ये पंचायतों की खुली बैठक से लेकर सरकारी योजनाओं का लाभ जनता तक पहुंचाने के लिए जवाबदेह होते हैं। दोनों ही विभागों के कर्मियों की तादाद 8156-8156 बताई जाती है। कुल 16,432 पंचायत कर्मियों पर प्रदेश की करीब 52 हजार ग्राम पंचायतों का काम है। पंचायतीराज विभाग के अधिकारी मानते हैं कि तमाम पंचायत सेक्रेटरी ऐसे हैं जिनके ऊपर पांच-छह गांवों की जिम्मेदारी है। इससे पंचायतों का काम प्रभावित होता है और सरकारी योजनाएं दम तोड़ देती हैं।
पंचायतीराज निदेशक सौरभ बाबू बताते हैं कि आरजीपीएसवाई के तहत प्रदेश सरकार ने वर्ष 2013-14 के लिए 125 करोड़ का प्रस्ताव केंद्र को भेजा था। इसमें 16,432 पंचायत सहायकों की नियुक्ति का प्रस्ताव भी शामिल था। केंद्र ने इस प्रस्ताव पर मुहर लगाने के साथ ही 42 करोड़ रुपये की स्वीकृति भी दे दी है। इसमें पंचायत सहायकों का छह महीने का मानदेय भी शामिल है। पंचायत सहायकों को संविदा के आधार पर करीब 10 हजार रुपये के मानदेय पर रखने की योजना है। इसके लिए शैक्षिक योग्यता, अनुभव व नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया तय करने की कार्यवाही की जा रही है

News Source : Amar Ujala (15.6.14)
Read more...

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Shiksha Mitra Related Cases in Allahabad Highcourt

Shiksha Mitra Related Cases in  Allahabad Highcourt

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. - 7

Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 2024 of 2013

Applicant :- Janki Prasad Verma
Opposite Party :- Vrijendra Pandeyan,District Magistrate Balrampur & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- B.K.Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S A Sabih,C B Singh,C S C

Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.03.2013, the writ court has passed an order in Writ Petition No.1924 (MS) of 2012, where it was held that:-
"The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.03.2012 is quashed and mandamus is issued to respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the light of the Government Order and advertisement within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
Learned counsel submits that the appointment has not been given to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra. He submits that as per the ratio laid down in Special Appeal No.765 of 2011 (Smt. Sheela Yadav & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) dated 09.05.2011, it was held that the appointment will be given to the petitioner as it is prior to 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 09.01.2012 has dismissed the Special Appeal No.21792/2011 filed by the State. So, he submits that the contempt has been committed.
On the other hand, Sri Surya Kumar holding brief of Sri C.B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that after 02.06.2010, as per the Government Order, no appointment can be made on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Now TET Test is mandatory.
Regarding the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Sheela Yadav (supra), he submits that the same was considered by the Larger Bench of this Court in Writ A No.26189 of 2012 (Km. Sandhya Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P.) vide its judgment and order dated 08.08.2013, where it was held that the TET Test is mandatory. No appointment can be made. The ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Sheela Yadav (supra) is superseded. So, he submits that no contempt has been committed.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP in the case of State of U.P. vs. Sheela Yadav & Ors., but without passing any speaking order. No ratio is laid down. Thus, at that time, the case of Smt. Sheela Yadav (supra) has become final. However, the Larger Bench of this Court has discussed the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Sheela Yadav (supra), at length and finally it was held that no appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra can be made out. So, no appointment is likely to be made on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Hence, no contempt has been committed.
Regarding the order passed by the writ court, it appears that the direction was to consider the case of the petitioner, which has been considered vide order dated 21.12.2013, where the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed.
From the above, it is evident that the order passed by the writ court has been complied with. However, for the grievance, if any, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the same within a period of two months, before the appropriate forum, if advised so. But, presently, no contempt exits.
With the aforesaid liberty, the contempt petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.1.2014
Rakesh/-




**********************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. - 7

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 2051 of 2001

Petitioner :- Shiv Murti Mishra & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary,Basic Education,Lucknow &Ors
Petitioner Counsel :- Janardan Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,J.C.Srivastava,S.B. Pandey,Vidyavasini Kumar

Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 16.04.2001 and 11.05.2001, where the claim of the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Mirta was ignored.
The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.1999, the writ court has passed an order, where the direction was issued that the case of the petitioners shall be considered under the new scheme on the post of Shiksha Mitra.� If the selection will be made by the local bodies, then preference will be given to the petitioners over the fresh candidates under the Scheme of Shiksha Mitra and Acharya.
Sri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.07.2001, where a direction was issued that no fresh selection for the post of Shiksha Mitra shall be held unless either the judgment of this Court dated 17.08.1999 is complied with or the said judgment is got stayed or set aside.� Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party has not considered the case of the petitioners for the post of Shiksha Mitra or Acharya.� But, he accepts that no other person has been appointed on the said post.
On the other hand, Sri V.Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the Shiksha Mitra Scheme has already� been abolished by the Government w.e.f. 2010.� Now,� T.E.T. (Teachers Eligibility Test)� is required for the post of Shiksha Mitra.
After hearing both the parties, it appears that the interim order passed by this Court was merely not to fill up the posts and the said posts were never filled up. About the direction dated 17.08.199 issued by the writ� court, it is evident that direction was to consider the case of the petitioners. In the changed circumstances, now the case of the petitioners can not be considered due to the new Scheme of T.E.T.
Hence, the prayer made in the petition has become infructuous by efflux of time.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being infructous.
Order Date :- 25.2.2013
ank

*****************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 365 of 2013

Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh Yadav And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Principal Secretary & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners who are six in number are B.Ed. degree holders. They have also qualified the U.P.T.E.T. Examination of 2011. Petitioners claim to be working as Shiksha Mitra. They seek quashing of the corrigendum dated 31.08.2011, Government Order dated 05.12.2012 and advertisement dated 07.12.2012 being� ultra-vires and against the guidelines framed by the National Counsel for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.). They also seek writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fill up the vacancies as per advertisement dated 30.11.2011 or in the alternative to provide weightage to the persons already working Shiksha Mitras like petitioners in the matter of recruitment under the advertisement dated 07.12.2012.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the earlier advertisement dated 30.11.2011, which has now been canceled, 10% of� the seats of Primary Teachers were reserved for Shiksha Mitra. There is no reason to deviate from the said reservation. He submits that Rule 4 of the U.P. Basic Teachers Service Condition Rules, 1981 provides for the cadre strength. No amendment has been made to create cadre posts of trainee teachers therefore, the Government Order dated 05.12.2012 and the Advertisement dated 07.12.2012 are bad.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not appeal to the Court. Appointment of Trainee Teachers has been provided by Rule 14(1)(b) of the 1981 Rules and Rule 14(1)(c) provides that such Trainee Teachers after completing the six months special training in Children Education, shall be appointed as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools in the prescribed payscale.�
In view of the aforesaid there is no requirement of any separate cadre of Trainee Teachers being created.
Counsel for the petitioners then contended that B.Ed. had been declared as eligibility for appointment as Assistant Teachers, which is contrary to Rule 8 and also contrary to Rule 1 of the N.C.T.E. Notification dated 23rd August, 2010. This contention is bad on account of non consideration of Clause 3 of the notification of the N.C.T.E., which provides for appointing those candidates who possess Graduation and B.Ed. qualification with the condition that they shall be required to undergo six months special training as prescribed by the N.C.T.E. This relaxation is to subject to non availability of qualified condidates as per Clause 1 of the Notification dated 23.08.2010.
The petitioners are not B.T.C., they are B.Ed. and thereforethe plea raised is self defeating.
So far as 10% reservation of seats for Shiksha Mitra is concerned, under the Rule of 1981 there is no such provision for any reservation being provided in favour of the Shiksha Mitra. If on an earlier occasion the State Government had� provided for reservation in favour of the Shiksha Mitra, the same cannot be extended to the appointments to be made under Rules, 1981.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.1.2013
A. Verma

*************************
 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48159 of 2012

Rajneesh Ranjan

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.
Petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner of Shiksha Mitra by giving the benefit of Government Order dated 10.10.2005 and 24.04.2006 issued by Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and state Project Director, Lucknow respectively (Annexure No. 9 and 10) and appoint him as Shiksha Mitra in the respective village.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that selection proceeding on the post of Shiksha Mitra has been undertaken in the year 2005-06, and therein he has applied for being appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra and thereafter merit list has been prepared wherein petitioner has been placed at serial no. 1 but thereafter no follow up action has been taken whereas he has been continuously representing the matter before the respondents.
Learned Standing counsel as well as Sri R. B. Pradhan advocate contended that selection is of the year 2005-06 and as on date there is Government Order dated 02.06.2010, and as per the same no fresh appointment letter can be issued for engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra, as such this Court should not issue futile direction.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual situation which is emerging in the present case is that selection proceeding on the post of Shiksha Mitra has been undertaken in the year 2005-06 and petitioner has applied for being appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra and merit list has been prepared and in the said merit list so prepared petitioner was placed at serial no. 1. Petitioner claims that he should be offered appointment. Merely because petitioner's name is there in the select list there is no legal right conferred on him to claim appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra as a matter of right.
This court in Special Appeal No.2106 of 2011, Smt. Seeta and others vs. State of U.P. decided on 03.11.2011 has held as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This intra Court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.9.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.50266 of 2011 filed by the appellants.
The appellant-petitioners were applicants to the post of Shiksha Mitra, but were not selected. They approached this Court by filing individual writ petitions challenging the selection. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court, requiring the petitioners to represent their grievances before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, who was directed to decide the same. The District Magistrate, in compliance of the orders of this Court, considered the representations of the petitioner-appellants. The claim of appellant no.1 was allowed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 18.2.2010. Similarly, the claim of appellant nos. 2 and 3 was also accepted by the District Magistrate, vide orders dated 30.10.2009 and 06.03.2010 respectively. After about one and half years of the orders of the District Magistrate in their favour, the appellants approached this Court by filing second writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to send them for training and offer appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra.
Learned Single Judge, finding that the petitioner-appellants sat tight over the matter despite the orders of the District Magistrate in their favour and in the meantime, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 2.6.2010 imposing total ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra, dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2010 holding that after imposition of ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra, vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010, no fresh appointment/engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra can be made.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the selection of the petitioner-appellants was made prior to the imposition of ban by the State Government, hence they ought to have been sent for training and given appointment. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Km. Sonika Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2011 (1) ADJ 103 (DB) has held that the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 imposing ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra was prospective in operation and the persons selected earlier are entitled for engagement. He further submitted that in view of there being a conflict with the opinion expressed by two Benches of coordinate jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge ought to have referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench and could not have dismissed the writ petition.
We have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.
The ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra was imposed by the State Government in view of the promulgation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which provides a detail procedure and qualifications for appointment of a Teacher in the Primary School. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2010 has taken a view that after the ban imposed by the State Government, no fresh appointment can be made.
The view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Km. Sonika Verma (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, in our considered opinion, is based on its own facts. In the case of Km. Sonika Verma (supra), the candidature of the appellant therein was placed in disputed category by the respondents without there being any dispute or litigation in respect of her selection. The respondents without adjudicating the case as to why her selection was disputed, simply informed her that she cannot be offered appointment due to ban imposed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010. It may be relevant to point out the following observation made by the Division Bench in the said case.
"It is evident from the record that there was no dispute in relation to the selection of the appellant as Shiksha Mitra. The word 'Vivadit' as mentioned in the proposal was found by the respondents themselves as incorrect. In such a situation to non-suit the appellant would be to deny the opportunity of employment to her on an erroneous assumption. The appellant was entitled to be offered appointment alongwith other selected candidates and there was no occasion to treat her selection to be disputed. This being the factual position in the present case, in our opinion, the respondents have erroneously applied the Government Order dated 2.6.2010, which cannot be pressed into service on the facts of the present case."
Thus, it was a case decided on its own facts, whereas in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2010, the Division Bench has upheld the validity of the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 imposing ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. Thus, in our considered opinion, there is no conflict in the two decisions. In the present case, though the claim of the petitioner-appellants was upheld as long back as in 2009-2010, but they sat tight over the matter and only approached this Court much after the ban was imposed vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010. Once their claim was upheld by the District Magistrate and there was no follow up action, it was incumbent upon them to have taken steps for enforcement of their rights immediately or at least within a reasonable time. Learned Single Judge, thus, rightly refused to grant the relief claimed on account of delay on their part.
In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal, being without merit, is dismissed".
Consequently, as per Government Order dated 02.06.2010, no fresh appointment letter can be issued for engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra, and merely because name of petitioner finds place in the merit list, petitioner has no legal right conferred on him to claim appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra as a matter of right, as such no relief can be accorded to the petitioner and accordingly present writ petition is dismissed.
Dated 19.09.2012
Dhruv

****************

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 30


Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44263 of 2012

Petitioner :- Premila Devi & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Babu Nandan Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B.P. Singh
Connected with
1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44425 of 2012

Petitioner :- Sadhana Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- B.D. Mishra,Kamal Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.K. Chand

2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44430 of 2012

Petitioner :- Ramkhilawan & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- B.D. Mishra,Kamal Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.K. Chand

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Every day writ petitions are being filed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Shikshamitra in pursuance of selection made by Gram Shiksha Samiti/Block Level Committee, and in the said direction reliance is being placed on the judgment passed in Special Appeal No.1827 of 2010 in the case of Km. Sonika Verma vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ESC 681. After the said judgment, there has been a judgment of Lucknow Bench in the case of Km. Rekha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.276 (Defective) of 2011) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.373 (Defective) of 2011) dated 13.05.2011, wherein view has been taken that mere selection does not confer any right as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Government of Orissa through Secretary Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubneshwar vs. Har Prasad and others reported in 1998 (1) ESC 74 (SC). Division Bench therein has taken the view that with the imposition of ban on 02.06.2010, there can be no further direction for appointment or training being imparted to Shikshamitra, who were selected earlier. The relevant portion of the judgments of the said Division Benches of this Court are as follows:

"Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2011 :
In the instant case, even before the petitioner-appellant could be appointed and sent for training on account of intervening circumstance, the State took a stand that they are no longer making appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra in view of the promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The selection only gives a right to the selected candidate to be considered. It is always open to the respondents to give satisfactory reasons for not making appointment. In the instant case, the respondents have given sufficient reason as to why the appointment could not be made. That reason cannot be faulted, namely that after promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009, they are no longer making any appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra?.
Special Appeal Defective No. 373 of 2011 :
Learned counsel for appellant also referred to a judgment rendered by the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Chief Justice in his favour. However, in the said judgment, the appellant had been denied appointment on the ground that other similarly situated 22 candidates who have been selected with him, had been given appointment. In this case also, the Division Bench has held that Govt. Order 2..6.2010 was to apply prospectively.
Learned counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sri Jyotinjay Verma referred to another Division Bench judgment of Allahabad Bench wherein it was held that fresh engagement requires a prior training, therefore, when no engagement as such has been made, the case of the appellant will be hit by Govt. Order dated 2nd June, 2010. Sri Verma also submitted that though process of file started between 2008 and 2011 but the appellant did not raise any issue till 2011 or in any case before issuance of Circular of 2010. Learned Counsel also submitted that State Govt. has issued further two Circulars dated 22.2.2011 and 1.3.2011 but reiterates the first Circular dated 2.6.2010. Thus, intention of the Govt. Order has been made amply clear that there was a ban on engagement after first Circular dated 2.6.2010. Similarly, learned State Counsel also referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court. In the judgment reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court, page 395, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, a Constitution Bench laid down the basic law that even in a case where policy decision was taken as a part of cabinet noting in favour of a candidate yet if the same was not communicated to the person, it did not create any enforceable right. Learned State Counsel further referred to a judgment in Tagin Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996(5) SCC 83 wherein it was laid down that till appointment letter was issued or it was in transit, no enforceable right could be created.
In the instant case, though the learned counsel for appellant has annexed the recommendation of Village Level Committee but there is nothing to show that recommendation went up further or District Level Committee caused delay by sitting over the file. Moreover, the appellant had all the opportunity to agitate the issue before the date of issuance of Circular on 2.6.2010 but instead the writ petition was filed in 2011. Besides, there is nothing from the record to show that a decision was taken in favour of the petitioner or there was nothing like appointment letter for attending training under the Right to Education Act. Moreover, another Division Bench of Allahabad Bench in Tarun Prakash Pandey (supra), has categorically held that till the training was completed, there was no question of engagement as Shiksha Mitra and since there was ban on engagement even such candidates who had completed training after appointment, had no right to be communicated?."

Not only this, in Special Appeal No.2106 of 2011, this Court has not at all approved the view taken in the case of Km. Sonika Verma, and in the considered opinion of the Court, it was based on its own facts. In the said Special Appeal No.2106 of 2011 note has been taken of the judgment in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2011, wherein view has been taken that after the ban imposed by the State Government no fresh appointment can be made. The judgment in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2011 is being quoted below:
"This intra court appeal arises from the judgement and order of the learned single Judge dated 2.9.2011 dismissing the appellant's writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
It appears that one Smt. Pushpa Devi was engaged as 'Shiksha Mitra' in 2005. The appellant had also participated in the selection and was placed below Smt. Pushpa Devi in the merit list at serial no. 2. It is admitted fact that Smt. Pushpa Devi joined the post and worked for sometime.
However, subsequently, her appointment was cancelled on the ground that she obtained engagement on the basis of a forged mark sheet. The appellant thereafter, filed the writ petition claiming that since she was placed at serial no. 2 on the merit list she ought to have been given appointment.
Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the panel or the select list having been exhausted after the appointment of Smt. Pushpa Devi, the appellant has no right and her claim cannot be considered. Hence, the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since the appellant was placed at serial no. 2 in the select list and in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal no. 1827 of 2010 (Sonika Verma vs. State of U.P.), the appellant should have been considered for giving appointment against the vacancy caused due to removal of Smt. Pushpa Devi.
We do not find force in the submission for the reason that it is well settled legal position that after appointment of the selected candidate, the select list gets exhausted and therefore, learned single Judge rightly held that the appellant cannot be considered for appointment. Reliance placed on the decision of Sonika Verma (Supra) is misplaced and has no application in the facts of the present case.
The appeal being without merit stands dismissed."

This court in Special Appeal No.2106 of 2011, Smt. Seeta and others vs. State of U.P. decided on 03.11.2011 has held as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This intra Court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.9.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.50266 of 2011 filed by the appellants.
The appellant-petitioners were applicants to the post of Shiksha Mitra, but were not selected. They approached this Court by filing individual writ petitions challenging the selection. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court, requiring the petitioners to represent their grievances before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, who was directed to decide the same. The District Magistrate, in compliance of the orders of this Court, considered the representations of the petitioner-appellants. The claim of appellant no.1 was allowed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 18.2.2010. Similarly, the claim of appellant nos. 2 and 3 was also accepted by the District Magistrate, vide orders dated 30.10.2009 and 06.03.2010 respectively. After about one and half years of the orders of the District Magistrate in their favour, the appellants approached this Court by filing second writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to send them for training and offer appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra.
Learned Single Judge, finding that the petitioner-appellants sat tight over the matter despite the orders of the District Magistrate in their favour and in the meantime, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 2.6.2010 imposing total ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra, dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2010 holding that after imposition of ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra, vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010, no fresh appointment/engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra can be made.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the selection of the petitioner-appellants was made prior to the imposition of ban by the State Government, hence they ought to have been sent for training and given appointment. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Km. Sonika Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2011 (1) ADJ 103 (DB) has held that the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 imposing ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra was prospective in operation and the persons selected earlier are entitled for engagement. He further submitted that in view of there being a conflict with the opinion expressed by two Benches of coordinate jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge ought to have referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench and could not have dismissed the writ petition.
We have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.

The ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra was imposed by the State Government in view of the promulgation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which provides a detail procedure and qualifications for appointment of a Teacher in the Primary School. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2010 has taken a view that after the ban imposed by the State Government, no fresh appointment can be made.
The view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Km. Sonika Verma (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, in our considered opinion, is based on its own facts. In the case of Km. Sonika Verma (supra), the candidature of the appellant therein was placed in disputed category by the respondents without there being any dispute or litigation in respect of her selection. The respondents without adjudicating the case as to why her selection was disputed, simply informed her that she cannot be offered appointment due to ban imposed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010. It may be relevant to point out the following observation made by the Division Bench in the said case.
"It is evident from the record that there was no dispute in relation to the selection of the appellant as Shiksha Mitra. The word 'Vivadit' as mentioned in the proposal was found by the respondents themselves as incorrect. In such a situation to non-suit the appellant would be to deny the opportunity of employment to her on an erroneous assumption. The appellant was entitled to be offered appointment alongwith other selected candidates and there was no occasion to treat her selection to be disputed. This being the factual position in the present case, in our opinion, the respondents have erroneously applied the Government Order dated 2.6.2010, which cannot be pressed into service on the facts of the present case."
Thus, it was a case decided on its own facts, whereas in Special Appeal No.1995 of 2010, the Division Bench has upheld the validity of the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 imposing ban on the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. Thus, in our considered opinion, there is no conflict in the two decisions. In the present case, though the claim of the petitioner-appellants was upheld as long back as in 2009-2010, but they sat tight over the matter and only approached this Court much after the ban was imposed vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010. Once their claim was upheld by the District Magistrate and there was no follow up action, it was incumbent upon them to have taken steps for enforcement of their rights immediately� or at least within a reasonable time. Learned Single Judge, thus, rightly refused to grant the relief claimed on account of delay on their part.
In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal, being without merit, is dismissed".

This Court in writ petition No.26189 of 2012, Km. Sandhya Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others has proceeded to make the following reference:
"There is a conflict in the law laid down by the two Division Benches, as noticed above, it has become necessary for this Court to refer the following questions for being referred to a Larger Bench :

(a) Whether mere selection on a date prior to 02.06.2010 will confer a right upon the incumbent to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra even after the State Government has imposed a ban on such appointment on 02.06.2010 and the scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been dropped by the State Government.

(b) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verma vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) or the law laid down by the Division Benches in the case of Km. Rekha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is the correct law.

Since similar matters are coming up before this Court repeatedly, it would be appropriate that the said question may be answered by the Larger Bench, at the earliest possible. Let the papers be laid immediately before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constituting the Larger Bench."

In view of this, the record of present writ petitions be also connected with the record of writ petition No.26189 of 2012.
Order Date :- 4.9.2012
SRY

**************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 534 of 2012

Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajoy Kumar Banerjee
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S. Kushwaha

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
The writ petition appears to be wholly misconceived.
Under the Government Order dated 01.09.2011, provisions have been made for imparting B.T.C. Training Course and the selections to be held for the purpose. Under Clause 3(b), the age for making the application� has been provided as 18-30 years years with relaxation of five (5) years in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Class and dependents of freedom fighters. Under clause 5(c), 10% seats have been reserved for the persons working as Shiksha Mitra in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner admits that he is over age with reference to clause 3(b).
It is his case that since the petitioner is a Shiksha Mitra and is entitled to be considered within 10% reservation in the matter of admission to B.T.C. Course, there should be relaxation of the outer age limit by five (5) years.
The contention has only been raised to be rejected. It is for the State Government to provide the minimum and outer age limit for admission to B.T.C. Course 2011. Merely because 10% reservation in the matter of admission to B.T.C. Training Course is provided, it will not mean that age relaxation must necessarily be provided to Shiksha Mitra.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.7.2012
N.S.Rathour
*************
 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?A.F.R.
Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26189 of 2012

Petitioner :- Km. Sandhya Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Babu Nandan Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Petitioners, who are five in number, claim to have been selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2009. However, they were neither appointed as Shiksha Mitra nor were sent for training despite the said selection. In the meantime the State Government imposed a ban on appointment of Shiksha Mitra because of the change in the policy vide Government Order dated 02.06.2010. The scheme in respect of Shiksha Mitra itself has been done away with and by means of the subsequent government order it has been provided that no further training to Shiksha Mitras shall be provided.
According to the petitioners one Sheela Yadav who was also selected similarly like the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15796 of 2011 before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 29.03.2011 because of the ban imposed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 02.06.2010.
Sheela Yadav, not being satisfied, filed Special Appeal No. 765 of 2011. The appeal has been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and it has been held that since selections had taken place earlier in point of time to the imposition of the ban, the same shall not apply as it was prospective in nature. The selected Shiksha Mitra was directed to be sent for training.
According to the petitioner against the order of the Division Bench, Special Leave to Appeal was filed before the Apex Court which has been dismissed on 09.01.2012. Petitioners have, therefore, come up before this Court for similar orders being issued.
On behalf of the respondents it is stated that although the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verms vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011 (1) ESC, 681 has held that the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 is prospective in nature, therefore, will not prohibit the appointment and training of Shiksha Mitra who had been selected earlier to the imposition of ban. Yet two other Division Benches of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Rekha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2011) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 373 of 2011 dated 13.05.2011) have explained that mere selection does not confer any rights as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Government of Orissa through Secretary, Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubaneshwar vs. Harprasad and others reported in 1998 (1) ESC, 74 (SC). The Division Benches have gone on to hold that with the imposition of the ban on 02.06.2010, there can be no further direction for appointment or training being imparted to the Shiksha Mitra who were selected earlier. The relevant portion of the judgments of the said Division Benches of this Court are as follows:
?Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2011 :
In the instant case, even before the petitioner-appellant could be appointed and sent for training, on account of intervening circumstance, the State took a stand that they are no longer making appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra in view of the promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The selection only gives a right to the selected candidate to be considered. It is always open to the respondents to give satisfactory reasons for not making appointment. In the instant case, the respondents have given sufficient reason as to why the appointment could not be made. That reason cannot be faulted, namely that after promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009, they are no longer making any appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra?.

?Special Appeal Defective No. 373 of 2011 :
Learned counsel for appellant also referred to a judgment rendered by the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Chief Justice in his favour. However, in the said judgment, the appellant had been denied appointment on the ground that other similarly situated 22 candidates who have been selected with him, had been given appointment. In this case also, the Division Bench has held that Govt. Order 2..6.2010 was to apply prospectively.
Learned counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sri Jyotinjay Verma referred to another Division Bench judgment of Allahabad Bench wherein it was held that fresh engagement requires a prior training, therefore, when no engagement as such has been made, the case of the appellant will be hit by Govt. Order dated 2nd June, 2010. Sri Verma also submitted that though process of file started between 2008 and 2011 but the appellant did not raise any issue till 2011 or in any case before issuance of Circular of 2010. Learned Counsel also submitted that State Govt. has issued further two Circulars dated 22.2.2011 and 1.3.2011 but reiterates the first Circular dated 2.6.2010. Thus, intention of the Govt. Order has been made amply clear that there was a ban on engagement after first Circular dated 2.6.2010. Similarly, learned State Counsel also referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court. In the judgment reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court, page 395, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, a Constitution Bench laid down the basic law that even in a case where policy decision was taken as a part of cabinet noting in favour of a candidate yet if the same was not communicated to the person, it did not create any enforceable right. Learned State Counsel further referred to a judgment in Tagin Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996(5) SCC 83 wherein it was laid down that till appointment letter was issued or it was in transit, no enforceable right could be created.
In the instant case, though the learned counsel for appellant has annexed the recommendation of Village Level Committee but there is nothing to show that recommendation went up further or District Level Committee caused delay by sitting over the file. Moreover, the appellant had all the opportunity to agitate the issue before the date of issuance of Circular on 2.6.2010 but instead the writ petition was filed in 2011. Besides, there is nothing from the record to show that a decision was taken in favour of the petitioner or there was nothing like appointment letter for attending training under the Right to Education Act. Moreover, another Division Bench of Allahabad Bench in Tarun Prakash Pandey (supra), has categorically held that till the training was completed, there was no question of engagement as Shiksha Mitra and since there was ban on engagement even such candidates who had completed training after appointment, had no right to be communicated?.
There is a conflict in the law laid down by the two Division Benches, as noticed above, it has become necessary for this Court to refer the following questions for being referred to a Larger Bench :
(a) Whether mere selection on a date prior to 02.06.2010 will confer a right upon the incumbent to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra even after the State Government has imposed a ban on such appointment on 02.06.2010 and the scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been dropped by the State Government.
(b) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verma vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) or the law laid down by the Division Benches in the case of Km. Rekha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is the correct law.
Since similar matters are coming up before this Court repeatedly, it would be appropriate that the said question may be answered by the Larger Bench, at the earliest possible. Let the papers be laid immediately before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constituting the Larger Bench.
Dated :25.05.2012
VR/26189/12

***********************


Read more...

The Most Important Judgement of Allahabad Highcourt Judgement ( Three Judge Bench ) on The Matter of TET Vs Non TET and Other Matters

The Most Important Judgement of Allahabad Highcourt Judgement ( Three Judge Bench ) on The Matter of TET Vs Non TET and Other Matters


इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट के ट्रिपल बेंच के आदेश को विस्तार से पड़ने के लिए इस लिंक पर क्लिक करें :
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/search/label/Allahabad%20Highcourt%20Triple%20Bench%20Order




Allahabad High court ke Triple Bench ke Order ko Padne Ke Liye Yahan Click Karen : http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/search/label/Allahabad%20Highcourt%20Triple%20Bench%20Order
Ya Fir Blog Par is Label Par Click Karen  "Allahabad Highcourt Triple Bench Order" par click karen. Triple Bench se sambandhee saaree jaankaree saamne aa jayegee.




Click on the Labels below -  Allahabad Highcourt Triple Bench Order


Read more...

Shiksha Mitron ko TET se Choot / Relaxation Sambandhee Letter from NCTE

Shiksha Mitron ko TET se Choot / Relaxation Sambandhee Letter from NCTE

Sachin Bhardwaj dwara Facebook par yeh jankaree share kee gayee hai :

Ye Lijiye NCTE ke letters jinme Shiksha Mitron ko TET relax se mila hai ....

NCTE द्वारा जारी आदेश दि0 05 मार्च 2014 के आधार पर मिलेगी शिक्षामित्रों को टी0ई0टी0 से छूट -

NCTE द्वारा जारी पत्र दि0 05 मार्च 2014, जो कि श्री नीतेश्‍वर कुमार, सचिव, उ0प्र0 शासन, बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग, लखनऊ को जारी किया गया है, के आधार पर मिलेगी शिक्षामित्रों को टी0ई0टी0 से छूट प्रदान की गई है,

NCTE द्वारा माना गया कि जो 23 अगस्‍त 2010 से पूर्व कार्यरत अप्रशिक्षित अध्‍यापक विद्यालयों में कार्यरत है, उन्‍हें टी0ई0टी0 से छूट प्रदान की गई है। इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में पत्र के पैरा 05 (i) , (ii) में यह स्‍पष्‍ट किया गया है।

साथ ही प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में बी0एड/ बी0एड0 (विशेष शिक्षा) उत्‍तीर्ण अभ्‍यर्थियों को भी आगे मौका प्रदान किया गया है, परन्‍तु उन्‍हें बी0एड/बी0एड0 विशेष शिक्षा) धारकों 06 माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण उत्‍तीर्ण करना अनिवार्य होगा।
इस पत्र के आधार पर हजारों शिक्षक जैसे कस्तूरबा गाँधी, itinarent अध्यापक , रिसोर्स अध्यापको को फायदा मिलेगा



https://www.facebook.com/SachinBsr?fref=nf

Read more...

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT TRIPLE BENCH ORDER, ONCE AGAIN PUBLISHED AS PER DEMAND BY VISIOTORS

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT TRIPLE BENCH ORDER, ONCE AGAIN PUBLISHED
AS PER DEMAND BY VISIOTORS

We wish to clarify that the binding effect of the notifications and the guidelines is such that the weightage which is contemplated under the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 cannot be ignored. The minimum score that is required of a candidate is 60% to pass the teacher eligibility test. A concession of 5% has been made in favour of the reserved category candidates including the physically challenged and disabled persons.
This norm therefore cannot be diluted. Apart from this, the State Government has to take notice of the fact that weightage has to be given in the recruitment process as well. It is for the State Government to suitably adopt the said guidelines and we do not wish to add anything further at this stage as we are only concerned with the essentiality of the qualification of the teacher eligibility test to be possessed by any candidate aspiring to be appointed as a teacher. 

We wish to make it clear that the law has to be followed in the manner in which it has been legislated. It cannot be diluted on account of the inaction of the State. In such circumstances all teachers whose appointment relate to the period after 23.8.2010 have to be possessed of TET.

Old News Links : http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2013/06/uptet_5.html
****************
he questions that have been therefore framed by us are answered as follows:-
1. The teacher eligibility test is an essential qualification that has to be possessed by every candidate who seeks appointment as a teacher of elementary education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the notification dated 23.8.2010 which notification is within the powers of the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act.
2. Clause 3(a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 is an integral part of the notification and cannot be read in isolation so as to exempt such candidates who are described in the said clause to be possessed of qualifications from the teacher eligibility test.
3. We approve of the judgment of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case to the extent of laying down the interpretation of the commencement of recruitment process under Clause 5 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 but we disapprove and overrule the ratio of the said decision in relation to grant of exemption and relaxation from teacher eligibility test to the candidates referred to in Clause 3 (a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010, and consequently, hold that the teacher eligibility test is compulsory for all candidates referred to in Clause 1 and Clause 3 (a).
Let the judgement be accordingly placed before the respective benches for appropriate orders.

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2617665



Read more...

Directorate of Education (DOE Delhi) – 1981 Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) Posts

Sarkari Naukri Damad India. Latest Upadted Indian Govt Jobs - http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com
Directorate of Education (DOE Delhi) – 1981 Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) Posts

Directorate of Education, Delhi invites online applications form those candidates who are qualified in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (for class VI to VIII) conducted by CBSE for the recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Candidates can apply only in one district for a given post. District wise tentative vacancies (subject to variation) are as follows.

Post: Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT)

Vacancies: 1981 Posts
  • East: 198 Posts
  • North East: 321 Posts
  • North: 51 Posts
  • North West -A: 270 Posts
  • North West-B: 307 Posts
  • West –A: 28 Posts
  • West –B: 249 Posts
  • South West –A: 20 Posts
  • South West –B: 257 Posts
  • South: 259 Posts
  • New Delhi: 05 Posts
  • Central: 16 Posts
Salary: Rs.27800/- per month

Eligibility: The candidate should be qualified in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (for class I to V) conducted by CBSE.

Upper Age Limit: For Male – 30 years, For Female – 40 Years as on 01.07.2014. Age relaxation is applicable as per the rules.

Qualification: Candidates with Graduation in the specific subject with B.Ed. can apply.

TGT (English/Maths/Social Science/ Natural Science!): Main subject for TGT (Natural Science Physical Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany and Zoology. For TGT (Social Science) main subjects are History! Political Science! Economics! Business studies! Sociology/ Geography/ Psychology. Candidates with Graduation in two school subjects of which at least one out of the four. Namely (i) English (ii) Mathematics (iii) Natural Science! Physical Science and (iv) Social Science should have been at the elective level. Candidates with B.Ed and working knowledge of Hindi can apply for TGT.


TGT (MIL-Hindi/ Sanskrit/ Punjabi/Urdu): SA (Hon.) in one of the Modern Language (MIL) concerned Or B.A with MIL concerned as one of the elective subject with one additional language or one school subject at degree level Or Equivalent Oriental Degree in MIL concerned Or Sahitya Rattan of Hindi Sahita Sammelan Prayag (For Hindi Teachers only) with English in Matriculation B.Ed! Sr. Anglo Vernacular Certificate. Knowledge or Hindi essential.
(Amended Rules for Urdu): Candidates who possess qualification equivalent to secondary (10TH), Sr. Secondary (12TH) or equivalent from recognized/approved Madarsas and for admitting to B.A. degree and after that higher courses like B.Ed from a recognized institutions by the UGC are also eligible to apply

How to Apply: All Candidates are required to apply online through Directorate of Education Website: www.edudel.nic.in from 13.06.2014 to 21.06.2014.

Read more...

Engagement of 284 Primary School Teachers on Contract Basis, under SSA, in Sarvodaya Schools of DoE, Delhi http://edudel.nic.in

Sarkari Naukri Damad India. Latest Upadted Indian Govt Jobs - http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com
Engagement of 284 Primary School Teachers on Contract Basis, under SSA, in Sarvodaya Schools of DoE, Delhi

Engagement of Primary School Teachers on contract basis, under SSA, in Sarvodaya schools of Directorate of Education, Delhi-No. F.DE(29)UEEM/Access/2014-15/ 1112 , Dated: 9-6-2014
The application shall be submitted through online till 21.06.2014 by 05:00 pm.
The result will be displayed on website on 26.06.2014

Vacancies: 248 Posts
  • East: 41 Posts
  • North East: 40 Posts
  • North: 19 Posts
  • North West -A: 15 Posts
  • North West-B: 50 Posts
  • West –A: 10 Posts
  • West –B: 29 Posts
  • South West –A: 15 Posts
  • South West –B: 06 Posts
  • South: 49 Posts
  • Central: 10 Posts


The module for on-line application will be operational w.e.f. 13.06.2014 by 05.00 p.m. onwards

1. Primary Teachers are proposed to be engaged in Sarvodaya Schools of Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). District wise tentative vacancies (subject to variation) are as follows: -Total Vacancies - 284

East -41,NorthEast-40, North-19, North West -A-15,North West B- 50,West A- 10, West B-29, South West A-15, South West B- 6, South -49, Central - 10


2. These teachers are proposed to be engaged purely on contract basis till 31.03.2015.

3. The Consolidated salary of Rs. 27000/- per month will be paid to these teachers. No extra allowance will be admissible.


4. Essential:- a. Candidates with Senior Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent from a Recognized Board.
    b. Two years diploma or certificate course in Elementary Teachers Education Course/Junior
Basic Training or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent from a recognized institution.
c. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level.


5. As per Delhi Gazette Notification dated 07.10.201 1, only those candidates who are qualified in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (for class I to V) conducted by CBSE will be
considered for appointment of teachers for class I to V in the Sarvodaya schools of Delhi.


6. Recruitment Rules in detail are available on the website of Directorate of Education www.edudel.nic.in. Those who fulfill educational qualification, as specified in Recruitment
Rules (RRs) shall only apply.


7. Age:-I. Age as on 01.07.2014
    2. 30 years for all candidates.
    3. Age relaxable for 5 years in case ofSC/ST candidates.
    4. Age relaxable for 3 years in case orOBe candidates.
    5. Age relexable for candidates with disabilities- 10 years (General),
    15 years in the case SC/ST (PH) and 13 years in the case of aBC (PH).



8. The certificate of aBC should be issued by authority of GNCT of Delhi. For SC/ST Posts, candidates from other States can be considered.

9. The teachers would be engaged on the basis of merit in academic performance of the applicant at different level (X, XII and Two years diploma or certificate course in Elementary. Teachers Education Course/Junior Basic Training or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent from a recognized institution) and weight-age would be given to candidates who have worked as teacher under SSA during the year 2013-14 only in any DoE school.

10. Reservation will be provided as applicable under rules in the Directorate of Education.

11. Teachers employed on contract basis can be deployed in any school within the District in which he/she applies. Candidates can apply only in one district for a given post.

12. Willing candidates may apply online on our website www.edudel.nic.in latest by 21.06.2014 in anyone of the districts of their choice.
The applicant shall fill up his or her name exactly as recorded in the certificate of Secondary! Sr. Secondary Board Examination, failing which application shall be summarily rejected. No change in the application form will be entertained after submission.
The application shall be submitted through online till 21.06.2014 by 05:00 pm. The result will be displayed on website on 26.06.2014

The module for on-line application will be operational w.e.f. 13.06.2014 by 05.00 p.m. onwards

To View Detailed and Exact Advt. Visit following webpage:-
http://edudel.nic.in/upload_2013_14/1112_dt_10062014.pdf





Published at http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com (Click on the Labels below for more similar Jobs)
Read more...

SSA Primary Teacher Recruitment Last Date 21st June 2014 , Pay Rs 27000

Sarkari Naukri Damad India. Latest Upadted Indian Govt Jobs - http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com

Office of the UEE Mission Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Recruitment for Primary Teachers 2014



284 Vacancies at Office of the UEE Mission Sarva Siksha Abhiyan with pay Rs.27000/- for 10+2 / Diploma candidates. Apply Before 21st June 2014.

Name of the Government Organization: Office of the UEE Mission Sarva Siksha Abhiyan
Office of the UEE Mission Sarva Siksha Abhiyan invites applications for the following posts:

Vacancies: 248 Posts
  • East: 41 Posts
  • North East: 40 Posts
  • North: 19 Posts
  • North West -A: 15 Posts
  • North West-B: 50 Posts
  • West –A: 10 Posts
  • West –B: 29 Posts
  • South West –A: 15 Posts
  • South West –B: 06 Posts
  • South: 49 Posts
  • Central: 10 Posts


Job Designation: Primary Teachers

Number of Post: 284 (Two Eighty Four)

Pay Scale: Rs. 27000/-

Qualification:
a. Candidates with Senior Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent from a Recognized Board.
b. Two years diploma or certificate course in Elementary Teachers Education Course/Junior Basic Training or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent from a recognized institution.

c. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level.

As per Delhi Gazette Notification dated 07.10.201 1, only those candidates who are qualified in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET)  (for class I to V) conducted by CBSE will be
considered for appointment of teachers for class I to V in the Sarvodaya schools of Delhi.

Upper Age Limit: 30 years as on 01.07.2014. Age relaxation is applicable as per the rules.

Place of Work: New Delhi

How to Apply: Interested candidates may apply online on or before 21st June 2014.
All Candidates are required to apply online through Directorate of Education Website: www.edudel.nic.in from 13.06.2014 to 21.06.2014.
Apply online for Directorate of Education – Primary School Teachers Recruitment 2014


Last Date to Apply: 21st June 2014

Contact Address:
Office of the UEE Mission Sarva Siksha Abhiyan
1st Floor, Near Estate Branch, District North, Lucknow Road, Delhi – 110054


Advertisement Details: http://edudel.nic.in/upload_2013_14/1112_dt_10062014.pdf




Published at http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com (Click on the Labels below for more similar Jobs)
Read more...