/* remove this */

Friday, November 22, 2013

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 5

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.





PART -5








Importance of Education.
These appeals relates to filling up of 72,825 posts of Assistant Mater/Mistress in Junior Basic Schools in the State of U.P. Although, the above posts were advertised on 30.11.2011, but for the last about 2 years, neither the selection nor appointment could be completed due to one or the other reason.

Education plays a fundamental role in development of a society and nation. Imparting education to its children is of paramount importance to every society and nation. Development of a child is directly dependent on the quality of education which he or she receives in the beginning of life. In a welfare State, the paramount responsibility is of the State to ensure that all children are provided a quality education to enable them to develop into a good citizen for all round progress of society and nation.

Earl Warren, CJ of U.S. Supreme Court in Brown Vs. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) emphasised the right of education in the following words:

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and Local Governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment."

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions.
Part IV of the Constitution of India incorporated a directive principles of State Policy. Article 45 of the Constitution is quoted below:-

"45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children.- The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years."

The right to education has been accepted as a fundamental right. By Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, Article 21A has been inserted in the Constitution which is to the following effect:

"21A-Right to education. The State shall provide free and compulsory eduction to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law, determined".

In the State of U.P., the primary education was imparted through local bodies namely: Zila Parishad in rural areas and municipal Boards in urban areas. The administration of education at above level was not satisfactory and was deteriorating day by day. The Government on public demand took immediate steps for improving the education. The State Government took control of the primary education in its own hand for reorganising, reforming and expanding the same. With the above object the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted and a Board namely: Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education was constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The rules have been framed under the Act, 1972 by the State namely: Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 providing for cadre, qualification, method of recruitment and other connected matters.

After Constitution (Forty-two amendment) Act, 1976, Entry 25 List III of 7th schedule of the constitution is as follows:

"25.    Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."

The Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Section 12 enumerates functions of the council. Section 12 enumerates various functions of the council. Section 12 sub-clause (d) is as follows:

"12.    FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may -

(a) ........

(b) ........

(c) ........

(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions."


The Parliament for achieving the goal of providing free and compulsory education to all children enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter called the "Act, 2009"). Section 8(a), (d) and (g) provide as follows:

"8:Duties of appropriate Government.- The appropriate Government shall--

(a) provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child:

(b) .....................

(c) ....................

(d) provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning equipment;

(e) ....................

(f) ...................

(g) ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule."

Section 23 of the Act, 2009 provides for qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Section 23 of the Act, is as follows:

"23.Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.

(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed."


The Central Government vide notification dated 31.3.2010, has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The State Government vide its notification dated 23.8.2010, in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, 2009 laid down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class 1 to VIII. Clauses 1 to 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 which are relevant in the present case are as follows:

"NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010
F.No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S).- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), and in pursuance of Notification No.S.O. 750 (E) dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby lays down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the date of this notification:-

1. Minimum Qualifications:-
(i) CLASSES I - V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A/B.Sc and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A/B.Sc with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to beconducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education:- For the purposes of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered.
However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed (Special Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3. Training to be undergone :- A person-(a) with B.A/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January,2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education.

(b) with D.Ed (Special Education) or B.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education."

The above notification was further amended by National Council for Teacher Education vide notification dated 29.7.2011 which is to the following effect:
"3(i) Training to be undergone,- A person -
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education;

(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education...."

As noted above, the qualifications, recruitment and criteria for selection of teachers in junior Basic School is regulated by the Rules 1981. It is relevant to note the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1981 as they were existing on the date when notification dated 23.8.2010 was issued. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1981 provided for qualifications of candidates. Rule 8 sub-rule (ii) which relates to Assistant Master/Mistress of junior Basic school is as follows:

Post     Academic Qualification
(ii) Assistant Master
and Assistant Mistress
of Junior Basic School
A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Vishist Basic Teachers certificate (B.T.C.) two years
BTC Urdu Special Training Course, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto:
Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course.


Rule 14 of the Rules, 1981 provides for determination of vacancies and preparation of list. Rule 14 sub-rule (4) provided for criteria which was to be adopted while preparing the list. Rule 14 sub-rule (4) provided for arranging select list in accordance with the quality points specified in the Appendix. Rule 14 (4) as well as the appendix to the rules are to the following effect:

"14. Determination of vacancies and preparation of list.-
(1)    .....
(2)    .....
(3)    .....
(4)    The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidates who have passed the required training course earlier in point of time shall be placed higher than those who have passed the said training course later and the candidates who have passed the training course in a particular year shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the Appendix."

APPENDIX
[See Rule 14(4)]
Quality points for selection of candidates.
Name     of Quality points
Examination/Degree
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
1. High School     Percentage of marks
10
2. Intermediate Percentage of marks X 2
3. Graduation degree    Percentage of marks X 4
10

4. Training     First Division Second Division Third Division
(a) Theory     12     6     3
(b) Practical 12     6     3.

The education being subject matter of Entry 25 of List III by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by the Parliament shall prevail over any law made by the State. Thus, the notification issued under Section 23(1) of the Act, 2009 shall prevail over any law made by the State on the subject. The minimum qualification of teachers as provided in the Rules, 1981 thus has to give way to the minimum qualification as provided under the Act, 2009. Recognising the aforesaid, the State Government has made rules in exercise of power under Section 38 of the Act, 2009 namely: Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. Rule 15 of the Rules, 2011 provides as follows:

"15. Minimum qualification of teachers:
Section 23 (1).-The minimum educational qualifications for teachers, laid down by an authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be applicable for every school referred to in clause (n) section 2."



The State amended its Rules, 1981 to make it in consonance with the notification issued under Section 23(1) dated 23.8.2010, by virtue of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twelth Amendment) Rules, 2011 dated 09.11.2011. Existing Rule 8 which provides for academic qualification was amended with regard to Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress which is to the following effect:

2. In the said rules for rules 8 set out in Column-I below the rules as set out in Column II shall be substituted namely:
Column-I   
Existing Rule
Column-II
Rule as hereby substituted
Post
Academic Qualifications
Post
Academic Qualifications
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School
A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Vishist Basic Teachers certificate (B.T.C.) two years BTC Urdu Special Training Course, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto:

Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course.
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools
Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), two years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC and have passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.


One most important feature which was brought in the statutory scheme under the provisions of the Act, 2009 is Teacher Eligibility Test. The Teacher Eligibility Test has been envisaged as a test which is to be passed by every candidate who is to be considered for appointment as Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in a primary school. The Teacher Eligibility Test was to be held by every State as per the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. Teacher Eligibility Test for primary schools is akin to "National Eligibility Test" which has been now provided as qualification for appointment of teachers in graduate and Post Graduate colleges i.e. for higher education.

The Teacher Eligibility Test has been introduced to choose a candidate for appointment as teachers in primary school who conform to a uniform standard. The National Council for Teacher Education has issued a guidelines dated 11.2.2011, in respect of Teacher Eligibility Test. The guidelines dated 11.2.2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education apart from providing background and rationale, eligibility also laid down giving weightage to the marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test in appointment of Teachers. Paragraph 9 of the guidelines which has a heading of qualifying marks provides as follows:

"Qualifying marks
9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government local bodies, government aided and unaided)

(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc, in accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment."


The State following the notification dated 23.8.2010, and the aforesaid guidelines dated 11.2.2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education also amended the Rule 14 (4) which provides criteria for selection of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress, the earlier criteria of selection was given a go-bye and sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 provided as follows:

"(3) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that their names shall be placed in descending order on the basis of the marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher."

Thus the State by 12th amendment rules provided for selection of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress on the basis of marks obtained in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Government of U.P.

As noted above, the Teacher Eligibility Test in the State of U.P. was conducted on 13.11.2011, the result of which was declared on 25.11.2013. The advertisement dated 30.11.2011, was issued for 72825 posts of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in the Junior Basic School to be filled up in accordance with the criteria as brought into force by 12th amendment rule dated 09.11.2011 which was in accordance with the notification dated 23.8.2010 and the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of National Council for Teacher Education. One more amendment in the rules which needs to be noted is the 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012. By 15th Amendment Rules, Rule 14 was amended and the criteria as provided for by Rule 14(3) by 12th amendment rules was withdrawn and the earlier criteria of selecting the teachers on the basis of the 'quality points' marks specified in "Appendix" was restored. Rule 14(3) as amended on 31.8.2012 was to the following effect:

"(3) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in appendix. In the said rules the following appendix shall be inserted at the end.

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher."
Issue No.1.

After considering the relevant statutory schemes regarding the criteria to be adopted for selection of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in the Junior Basic School, now we proceed to consider the issues as noted above.

The first issue to be considered is as to whether the Rules, 1981 are applicable for selection of B.Ed candidates for imparting 6 months training and appointment.

Shri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the Rules, 1981 have no application when the candidates having B.Ed qualifications are being selected for imparting 6 months training. He submits that the B.Ed candidates are selected for imparting 6 months training in accordance with the notification dated 23.8.2010 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, 2009 and they are not being selected under the Rules, 1981 for imparting 6 months training, hence the Rules, 1981 have no application. He further submits that the Rules, 1981 having no application the 15th and 16th amendment rules need not to be looked into.

The learned Single Judge in his impugned judment has held that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, notified appointments against the cadre posts covered by the the Rules, 1981 in Parishadiya Vidyalaya, hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Rules, 1981 are not applicable cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge rejected the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in the following words:

"From a reading of the first paragraph of the advertisement, it is apparently clear that the selections were to be made against the post of Assistant Teacher in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. From clause 9 of the advertisement, it is further apparent that after selection, the candidate would be appointed in a Parishadiya Vidyalaya of the District concerned. Out of the six months training prescribed, three months of training had to be undergone by actual working in the institution concerned. These three clauses of the advertisement make it abundantly clear that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 intended appointments against the cadre posts covered by '1981 Rules' in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioners lead by Sri Ashok Khare, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior Advocates and Sri Shailendra Advocate to the effect the '1981 Rules' will not apply, cannot be accepted."

Continued......

Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 4

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.





PART -4








Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants contended that it is the State which has been empowered to lay down the criteria for selection of teachers in the schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. It is submitted that there being serious allegations against the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011, the High Power Committee decided not to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test although the Teachers Eligibility Test as minimum qualification was retained as per the recommendations of the High Power Committee and the Cabinet decision.

He submits that the decision not to give wieightage to the marks of Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2011 was a conscious decision taken on account of allegations of irregularity, malpractices and illegality in the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011. It is submitted that the decision was taken to deny the benefits of marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test on account of serious allegations. It is submitted that the State had every right to amend the criteria and restoration of earlier criteria by 15th Amendment Rules was well within the powers of the Rule making authority. Learned Additional Advocate General has defended the judgment of learned Single Judge taking the view that there being no cadre of trainee teacher, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was invalid. He submits that the State having realised the mistakes in issuance of advertisement dated 30.11.2011, has corrected the mistake. It is submitted that 16th Amendment Rules thus have been made to provide for a cadre of trainee teachers thereafter fresh process has been initiated. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the Government Order dated 10.4.2012 constituting High Power Committee and the report of the High Power Committee dated 1.5.2012 which have been filed along with the short counter affidavit. It is submitted that the above material has been brought on record in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.2.2013, passed in Special Appeal No. 150 of 2013. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 initiates the process of recruitment for appointment hence, 1981 Rules and other Rules are fully applicable. It is submitted that apart from advertisement dated 30.11.2011, no further advertisement is required. The State is following the guidelines of National Council For Teacher Education dated 11.2.2011. On a request of the State Government, Central Government has extended the date for completing the process of appointment of B.Ed. Teachers up to 31.3.2014. The petitioner appellants' case that they should be selected on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test cannot be accepted. The Cabinet has taken decision after due consideration.

Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the issue as to whether the rules of recruitment can be amended during the continuing process has been referred to larger Bench of the Supreme Court. He has referred to judgment of the apex Court in (2013) 4 SCC 540 Tej Prakash Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court. Sri Agrawal supported the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. He also sought to challenge the findings, which were recorded in favour of the writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge. Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for another intervenor has submitted that after 12th Amendment, Rules 17 and 17 A have not been amended due to which, an anomalous situation has arisen. He also supported the judgment of learned Single Judge. He submitted that State has removed the anomaly. He submitted that appointment on the basis of Teachers Eligibility Test marks cannot be made the sole criteria. Learned Counsel for the appellants in their rejoinder affidavit has reiterated their submission. It has been submitted that there being no material with the State Government to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011, at best the State could prohibit those candidates only against whom there were allegations of irregularity, illegality and malpractices.

Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar Advocate appearing for the National Council For Teacher Education has also been heard.
Issues:
From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on record, following are the issues which arise for consideration in this bunch of appeals.

1.Whether 1981 Rules are applicable for selection of B.Ed. Candidates for imparting six months training for appointment as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools?
2.Whether the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 for selection and appointment as trainee teacher against 72,825 posts in different junior basic schools was invalid on the ground that there was no cadre of trainee teachers in 1981 Rules ?
3.Whether the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council For Teacher Education requiring that State should give weightage to the marks of Teachers Eligibility Test while appointing the teachers were not binding on the State and could have been ignored while making selection and appointment on the post Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools?
4.Whether the State Government's order dated 26.7.2012 to make Teachers Eligibility Test only as a minimum qualification and restoration of the mechanism of giving weightage only on the basis of educational qualification for appointment of teachers as was in force prior to 12th Amendment Rules was in accordance with law?
5. Whether there were valid reasons for the State Government to declare the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as ineffective and to cancel the advertisement?
6.Whether the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (15th Amendment) Rules dated 31.8.2012 and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 were in accordance with law?

7. To what reliefs, the appellants are entitled in these appeals, if any?



Continued.....


Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART - 3

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.





PART -3







We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Shailendra, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Seemant Singh and other learned Counsels appearing for the appellants. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri B.P. Singh and Sri Shashank Shekhar advocates have been heard for the respondents.
Submissions:
The arguments which have been led in these appeals can be divided in two separate sets. The first set of arguments have been led by Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Shailendra and Sri Seemant Singh whereas, the second set of arguments have been lead by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate.

In support of Special Appeals including special appeal No. 150 of 2013, it is contended that selection process having begun by advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the criteria of selection could not have been changed by the Government Order dated 26.7.2013 as well as by 15th Amendment Rules and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012. It has been submitted that as per advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 12th Amendment Rules dated 9.11.2011, the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers was to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Teachers Eligibility Test, which criteria could not have been changed. It is submitted that 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012 at best was prospective in nature and could not have been applied on the ongoing selection process. It is submitted that after beginning of process of selection, Rules could not have been changed and any change was prospective in nature. It is further submitted that the State Government having decided to accept the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 as a qualifying examination, its decision not to rely on the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test examination for selection was self contradictory and arbitrary.  
****************
When Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 against whom allegedly there were allegations has been decided to be accepted as a "qualifying examination", there was no reason for not adopting the criteria for selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. It is submitted that the State having decided not to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination 2011 and having decided to debar only the individual candidates against whom there were allegations of irregularity and involvement in any criminal offence,  ********************
the other candidates against whom there were no allegations could not be made to suffer. It is submitted that learned Single Judge having accepted that 15th Amendment rules were not applicable in ongoing selection process and having further held that there was no valid reason with the State Government not to proceed with the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the appellants were entitled for grant of relief which was denied by learned Single Judge on a non-existent ground. The view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher hence, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress and the mere fact that the candidates were to be imparted six months' training was not to be treated as making appointment on some different posts of trainee teacher for which according to learned Single Judge there was no cadre. The appointment was contemplated against the post of Masters/Mistress and there was no question of appointment on any different post of Trainee Teachers. The Trainee Teacher was only a nomenclature adopted to define the B.Ed. Teachers who were to be imparted six months' training. Learned Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 651. It is submitted that the entire selection process was entitled to be completed on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and the appellants could not be asked to compete against set of persons, who were not even eligible at the time when advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was issued.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate in support of Special Appeal No. 159 of 2013 contended that 1981 Rules were not attracted, while making selection of the candidates for imparting six months' training. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 contemplated selection of the candidates for imparting six months training, which was to be carried out on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test and the question of appointment and applicability of 1981 Rules shall arise after the candidates complete their training. It is submitted that for selection of B.Ed. candidates for imparting six months training, 1981 Rules and the 15th and 16th Amendment Rules are irrelevant hence, the basis for issuance of the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 declaring the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 ineffective was misconceived. It is submitted that no other reasons have been given by the State Government for cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 except that after the enforcement of 15th Amendment Rules, the advertisement has become ineffective which is a fallacious reason. It is submitted by Sri Khare that the submissions of the petitioners that there was no valid reason with the State not to proceed with the selection dated 30.11.2011 having accepted by the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge having also accepted that 15th Amendment Rules were not applicable for the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher in 1981 Rules, the advertisement is bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the selection and appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress which are cadre posts and for appointment against the said posts the candidates were being selected for imparting six months training, which cannot mean that the candidates were being appointed against any post of Trainee Teacher. It is submitted that there is no necessity of any cadre of trainee teacher and learned Single Judge fell into error in holding the advertisement invalid on the aforesaid ground.

It is further submitted by Sri Khare that the 15th Amendment Rules are unsustainable and are liable to be declared as invalid and inoperative. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed in the writ petition seeking declaration that 15th Amendment rules are invalid. He submits that appointment of candidates having B.Ed. Qualifications was being made on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010. It is submitted that the appointment of B.Ed. Candidate is not being made in accordance with 1981 Rules, rather it was being made under the notification dated 23.8.2010, issued under section 23 of 2009 Act.

It is submitted that the National Council For Teacher Education has issued guidelines dated 11.2.2011, which require the State to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test for selection on the post of Assistant Teachers. The State could not have disregarded the said guidelines and the 15th Amendment Rules which have been made disregarding the binding guidelines of the National Council For Teacher Education, deserves to be declared invalid on this ground alone. It is 
submitted by Sri Khare that Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (6) ADJ 310 has already held the guidelines binding on the State. Sri Khare submits that selection on the basis of quality point marks as per Appendix which has now been restored by 15th Amendment Rules, was a criteria at the time when State has not amended its Rules according to the notification dated 23.8.2010. It is stated that notification dated 23.8.2010 is binding on the State and shall overrides the 1981 Rules. It is submitted that marks of Teachers Eligibility Test for selection of Assistant Teachers cannot be disregarded or ignored in view of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as well as the guidelines dated 11.2.2013.

Continued......


Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 2

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.



PART -2










Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

(Per Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

All these special appeals filed against the same judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2013 being connected, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The appellants possessing B.Ed. qualification and Teachers Eligibility Test had applied against 72,825 posts of Teachers of primary schools advertised on 30.11.2011, which selection was to take place on the basis of marks obtained in Teachers Eligibility Test, filed the writ petitions challenging the decision of the State Government by which Teachers Eligibility Test was decided to be only a minimum qualification and not the basis of selection. The petitioners had also prayed for completion of selection process on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011. Learned Single Judge although held that neither criteria for selection can be changed after start of selection process nor there was sufficient reason for not proceeding with the selection advertised on 30.11.2011, denied the relief to the petitioner-appellants only on the ground that there being no cadre of 'Trainee Teacher' under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 itself was invalid. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge have come up in these appeals.

Facts:
The background facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions need to be noted for deciding the issues, which have arisen for consideration in this bunch of special appeals. U.P. Basic Education Board constituted under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') is running various junior basic schools and Senior basic schools from classes I to VIII. The criteria and procedure for selection is regulated by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed under the 1972 Act. For achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith, the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 was enacted by Parliament (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Act). The Right of Education having been recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India and the State being responsible to provide free and compulsory education to the children up to 6 to 14 years, Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 
 Under section 23 of 2009 Act the National Council for Teacher Education has been authorised by the Central Government to lay down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. The National Council For Teacher Education vide notification dated 23.8.2010 laid down various qualifications for appointment of teachers.
Passing of Teachers Eligibility Test has been laid down as one of the qualifications, which is to be possessed by a candidate for appointment as a teacher. Under clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, candidates having B.Ed. qualification have also been treated as eligible provided they are imparted six months' special training programme in the elementary education. On 11.2.2011, the National Council For Teacher Education issued guidelines for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test which further provides for giving weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test in the recruitment of teachers.
On 9.11.2011, 1981 Rules were amended by 12th Amendment Rules incorporating passing of Teachers Eligibility Test as one of the minimum qualifications in the 1981 Rules. Rule 14(3) as amended further provides that selection shall be made on the basis of marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test. On 13.11.2011 Board of Highschool and Intermediate Education U.P. conducted the Teachers Eligibility Test examination in which several lacs of candidates participated. On 25.11.2011 result of Teachers Eligibility Test was declared. All the appellants were declared 'pass' in the examination. Inspite of various appointments made in the junior basic schools on the basis of the candidates passing B.T.C. Certificate and Special BTC certificate, still posts of more than a lac teachers are laying vacant in primary schools. By virtue of notification dated 23.8.2010, the candidates who possessed B.Ed. qualification were invited to apply for appointment as Trainee Teacher against 72,825 posts of Teachers for various schools in the State of U.P. The appellants/ writ petitioners submitted their applications in response to advertisement dated 3011.2011. On 31.12.2011 in district Ramabai Nagar, police personnel intercepted a vehicle and seized huge amount of several lacs of rupees and three lists of candidates from persons travelling in the vehicle, allegedly the money was collected to get the candidates passed in Teachers Eligibility Test and to get them appointed as Teachers. A first information report was lodged being case crime No. 675 of 2011 against seven persons. The residence of Director of Education Secondary was also searched on 7.2.2012 where three lists of candidates bearing their roll numbers totalling 260, were found along with an amount of Rs. 400,000 and odd. The Director of Secondary Education was also arrested. A writ petition No. 76039 of 2011 was filed challenging the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 in which this Court on 4.1.2012 stayed the process of selection. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed as infructuous. On 10.4.2012, the State Government constituted a High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of State to look into the allegations relating to Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 and to submit a report. On 1.5.2012, the High Power Committee submitted a report with several recommendations. High Power Committee recommended that Teachers Eligibility Test should be made only a qualifying examination. It was further recommended that those candidates of Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 who are found involved in any irregularity/criminal activity be prohibited from selection and their selection be cancelled. The report of High Power Committee was considered by the Cabinet and a decision was taken by the Cabinet, which has been notified by the Government Order dated 26.7.2012. The recommendations made by the High Power Committee were accepted by the Cabinet. The Cabinet decided to treat the Teachers Eligibility Test only as a minimum qualification and not the basis of selection and further the candidates who were found involved in any irregularity and criminal offences were to be prohibited in the selection.
On 31.8.2012, 15th Amendment Rules were published by which the earlier criteria of selection which was on the basis of marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test as introduced by the 12th Amendments Rules have been substituted by the criteria of 'quality point marks' which was prevalent since before the 12th Amendment Rules. A Government Order dated 31.8.2012 was also issued by the State stating that in view of the 15th Amendment rules, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 have become ineffective hence, the same may be cancelled and the fee be returned to the candidates. U.P. Basic Education Board also issued the order dated 31.8.2012 accordingly. Writ petition No. 39674 of 2012 Akhilesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others was filed in August, 2012 challenging the Government Order dated 26.7.2012 with further prayer of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the process of selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. After the publication of the 15th Amendment Rules, an amendment application has also been filed challenging the 15th Amendment Rules as well as the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. Large number of writ petitions were filed by the other candidates, who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. In December, 2012, the State Government issued 16th Amendment Rules by which definition of Trainee Teacher has been added as Rule 2(u) in 1981 Rules.

During the pendency of the writ petition, a Government Order dated 5.12.2012 was issued by the State Government initiating process of appointment for B.Ed candidates, who have passed Teachers Eligibility Test on the post of trainee teacher. On 7.12.2012, Basic Shiksha Adhikari of various districts issued advertisement inviting applications. On 16.1.2013 all the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed by learned Single Judge. On 29.1.2013 Special Appeal No. 150 of 2013 has been filed challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2013. A Division Bench of this Court on 4.2.2013 suspended the ongoing selection process till 11.2.2013, which interim order was extended from time to time. Other appeals were filed challenging the same judgment dated 16.1.2013. By order dated 23.10.2013 of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Special Appeal 237 (D) of 2013 has been nominated to this Bench. The special appeal No. 237 (D) of 2013 and other connected appeals have been listed for hearing.



Continued.....
Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept PART - 1


PART -1









HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 37 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2013 
`` 
Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pathak And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Singh,G.K. Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 
With 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013 

Appellant :- Navin Srivastava And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Asheesh Mani Tripathi,Shashi Nandan 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,C.B.Yadav 
With 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2013 

Appellant :- Anil Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 
With 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sadanand Mishra,Seemant Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta 
With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sujeet Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Shailendra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2013 

Appellant :- Alok Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastasva 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 
With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 205 of 2013 

Appellant :- Amar Nath Yadav And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Lal,Indra Raj Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.P. Singh,Mrigraj Singh,S. Nadeem Ahmad 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 206 of 2013 

Appellant :- Yajuvendra Singh Chanddel And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kshetresh Chandra Shukla 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2013 

Appellant :- Amiteshwari Dubey And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. Basic Education Lok. And Ors. 
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Dubey 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 244 of 2012 

Appellant :- Dr. Prashant Kumar Dubey 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mishra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 246 of 2013 

Appellant :- Priyanka Bhaskar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Shankar Tripathi,Vinod Shankar Tripathi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Chandra Singh 


With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 248 of 2013 

Appellant :- Uma Shanker Patel And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 249 of 2013 

Appellant :- Devesh Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 261 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B. Pradhan 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 262 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 264 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rama Tripathi And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 





With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 265 of 2013 

Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Yadav And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar,Sanjay Chaturvedi 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 266 of 2013 

Appellant :- Harvendra Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar,Y.S. Bohar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 268 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Srivastava And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.P. Singh,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 307 of 2013 

Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Pathak 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 333 of 2013 

Appellant :- Satendra Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Mishra,G.K. Mishra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.K. Yadav,Illegible 





With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 200 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rajpal Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Murtuza Ali 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,R.A. Akhtar,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 227 of 2013 

Appellant :- Praveen Kumar 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Irshad Ali 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 228 of 2013 

Appellant :- Mahendra Kumar Verma And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Chaurasia 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 302 of 2013 

Appellant :- Ram Baboo Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 672 of 2013 

Appellant :- Shashi Kumar Yadav And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 697 of 2013 

Appellant :- Mohammad Imran And 58 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 698 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sukriti Kumar And 119 Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1736 of 2013 

Appellant :- Smt. Sarita Mishra 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Laxmi Narain Mishra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar



Continued ......


Read more...

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife क्वांटम फिजिक्स - जीवन का कोई अंत नहीं और मृत्यु एक धोखा है

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife
क्वांटम फिजिक्स - जीवन  का कोई अंत नहीं और मृत्यु एक धोखा  है  
Theory of Everything

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist
Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round
This means space and time don't exist in the linear fashion we think it does
He uses the famous double-split experiment to illustrate his point
And if space and time aren't linear, then death can't exist in 'any real sense' either


It’s a question pondered by philosophers, scientists and the devout since the dawn of time: is there an afterlife?

Professor Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism teaches death as we know it is an illusion. He believes our consciousness creates the universe, and not the other way round, and once we accept that space and time are 'tools of our minds', death can't exist in 'any real sense' either.

****************************************************
Professor Lanza says biocentrism is similar to the idea of parallel universes — a concept hypothesised by theoretical physicists. In much the same way as everything that could possibly happen is speculated to be occurring all at once across multiple universes, he says that once we begin to question our preconceived concepts of time and consciousness, the alternatives are huge and could alter the way we think about the world in a way not seen since the 15th century's "flat earth" debate.

He goes on to use the so-called double-slit experiment as proof that the behaviour of a particle can be altered by a person's perception of it. In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through a multi-holed barrier, the particle acts like a bullet travelling through a single slit. When the article is not watched, however, the particle moves through the holes like a wave.

Scientists argue that the double-slit experiment proves that particles can act as two separate entities at the same time, challenging long-established ideas of time and perception.

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



While the religious would argue that life on earth is a mere warm up for an eternity spent in heaven or hell, and many scientists would dismiss the concept for lack of proof – one expert claims he has definitive evidence to confirm once and for all that there is indeed life after death.

The answer, Professor Robert Lanza says, lies in quantum physics – specifically the theory of biocentrism. The scientist, from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, says the evidence lies in the idea that the concept of death is a mere figment of our consciousness.

Professor Lanza says biocentrism explains that the universe only exists because of an individual’s consciousness of it – essentially life and biology are central to reality, which in turn creates the universe; the universe itself does not create life. The same applies to the concepts of space and time, which Professor Lanza describes as “simply tools of the mind”.

In a message posted on the scientist’s website, he explains that with this theory in mind, the concept of death as we know it is “cannot exist in any real sense” as there are no true boundaries by which to define it. Essentially, the idea of dying is something we have long been taught to accept, but in reality it just exists in our minds.

Professor Lanza says biocentrism is similar to the idea of parallel universes - a concept hypothesised by theoretical physicists. In much the same way as everything that could possibly happen is speculated to be occurring all at once across multiple universes, he says that once we begin to question our preconceived concepts of time and consciousness, the alternatives are huge and could alter the way we think about the world in a way not seen since the 15th century’s “flat earth” debate.

He goes on to use the so-called double-slit experiment as proof that the behaviour of a particle can be altered by a person’s perception of it. In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through a multi-holed barrier, the particle acts like a bullet travelling through a single slit. When the article is not watched, however, the particle moves through the holes like a wave.

Scientists argue that the double-slit experiment proves that particles can act as two separate entities at the same time, challenging long-established ideas of time and perception.

Although the idea is rather complicated, Professor Lanza says it can be explained far more simply using colours. Essentially, the sky may be perceived as blue, but if the cells in our brain were changed to make the sky look green, was the sky every truly blue or was that just our perception?

In terms of how this affects life after death, Professor Lanza explains that, when we die, our life becomes a “perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse”. He added: “Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix.”

See Robart Lenza'd Theory - http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/

*******************************************************
क्वांटम फिजिक्स के डबल स्लिट एक्सपेरिमेंट को वैज्ञानिकों ने अपने अपने अनुसार सुलझाया / बताया है

इसमें एक ही कण कि एक समय दो अलग अलग जगह होने कि पुष्टि होती है
इस बारे में कुछ वैज्ञानिकों का कहना है कि हमारा अस्तित्व भी बहुत सारी जगहे हैं और हमारे बृह्मांड  कि तरह बहुत सारे बृह्मांड मौजूद हैं जिनमें हम अलग अलग स्थितिओं  में मौजूद हैं और थ्योरी को नाम दिया गया - मल्टीवर्स थ्योरी या पैरेलल यूनिवर्स थ्योरी

प्रोफ़ेसर रॉबर्ट लेंजा ने बताया है कि हमारे दिमाग कि कल्पनाओं के अनुसार बहुत सारे मौजूद होते हैं और उसके अनुसार अवचेतन मन नए नए यूनिवर्स उत्पन्न करता रहता  है , मृत्यु एक भ्रम है ।
और जीवन मरण व एक सिंगल यूनिवर्स का कोई अस्तित्व नहीं है ।
उन्होंने अपनी थ्योरी को - बायो सेंट्रिस्म नाम दिया है
ऐसे ही पैरेलल यूनिवर्स थ्योरी के बहुत सारे प्रतिपादक हैं जिनमे नेक्स्ट आइंस्टीन के नाम से जापान के वैज्ञानिक  मिचुआ काकू का नाम प्रमुख है
उन्हीने अपनी थ्योरी को स्ट्रिंग थ्योरी का नाम दिया हुआ है


विज्ञानं कल्पनाओं में नहीं पुष्टि व्  नियम  में यकीन करता है , और अगर पैरलेल यूनिवर्स मौजूद है या बायो सेंट्रिस्म मौजूद है तो क्यूँ इंसान को इसके प्रमाण नहीं मिलते
आज इंसानी मस्तिष्क बहुत शक्तिशाली हो गया है - एक साथ लाखों करोड़ों ब्रेन्स मिलकर कंप्यूटर के जरिये नयी नयी रिसर्च कर सकते हैं और डेटा स्टोरेज को बड़ी बड़ी हार्ड डिस्कों में रखा जा सकता है
इंसान को सिर्फ लॉजिक व नियमों को समझना  है , अभी हमने विज्ञानं को १ प्रतिशत भी नहीं समझा है और अगले 400- 500 सालों में हमें 40-50 % विज्ञानं को समझना होगा जिसमें - दूसरे ग्रहों के संसाधन (तत्व , मेटेरिअल ) को कैसे अपने उपयोग में लाया जा सके , सूर्य जैसे तारों कि ऊर्जा को आम जन तक कैसे पहुँचाया जा सके , ब्लैक मेटर क्या है और सम्पूर्ण बृह्मांड क्या है समझना बाकि है 


बृह्मांड कि उत्पत्ति का राज क्या है , जीवन मरण क्या है
आखिर गुरुत्वाकर्षण शक्ति से कैसे यह बृह्मांड बंधा है और क्यूँ छोटे से परमाणु के नाभिक  से लेकर बृह्मांड में  कण , पिण्ड एक दूसरे के चक्कर लगा रहे हैं


Read more...