/* remove this */

Friday, September 20, 2013

UPTET : TET is mandatory to Become Teacher even for SBTC 2008 Candidates

UPTET : TET is mandatory to Become Teacher even for SBTC 2008 Candidates




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Judgment reserved on 25.7.2013     Judgment delivered on 20.08.2013

1.    SPECIAL APPEAL NO.29 OF 2013
Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others
Connected with
2.    SPECIAL APPEAL NO.2155 OF 2012
Fagoo Ram and others vs. State of UP and others
3.    SPECIAL APPEAL NO.2160 OF 2012
Brijesh Kumar Gautam & ors vs. State of UP and others
4.    SPECIAL APPEAL NO.166 OF 2013
Shiv Prasad and others vs. State of UP and others
5.    SPECIAL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2013
Jitendra Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others
6.    SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.1058 OF 2012
Pradeep Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others
7.    SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.1059 OF 2012
Mahesh Prasad Saroj and another vs. State of UP and others
8.    SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.128 OF 2013
Asharam and others vs. State of UP and others
9.    SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.414 OF 2013
Keshav Prasad and others vs. State of UP and others
10.    SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.566 OF 2013
Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others
11.    SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.692 OF 2013
Bijay Singh and others vs. State of UP and others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1.    We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vishnu Shanker Gupta for the appellants. Shri Vishnu Pratap appears for the State respondents.
2.    The appellants in this batch of intra-Court Special Appeals seeking admission to Special B.T.C. Course 2008 are aggrieved with short order passed by learned Single Judge dated 4.7.2012 in Writ Petition No.25714 of 2012 and other writ petitions, by which he has, on an affidavit filed by the Director, S.C.E.R.T. informing the Court that the process of recruitment to Special B.T.C. Course 2008 shall be positively closed on or before 31.7.2012, issued an order directing all the Principals of DIETs, that the result of the counselling, which has been completed, shall be declared on or before 31.7.2012, and thereafter, neither any counselling shall be done nor any admission will be made to Special BTC Course, 2008.
3.    Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that 3877 seats for Special BTC Course 2008, and 2531 seats for general selections to BTC Course 2008, are still lying vacant. All the petitioners-appellants are graduates with B.Ed qualification. They had applied in response to advertisements to fill up 10,084 seats in Special BTC Course 2008; 18301 seats for general selections in BTC Course 2008 and for 8878 seats as balance of the year 2007, totalling 37,263 seats. Out of these, 30855 candidates (15085 for Special BTC 2008 and 15770 for general selection 2008) were selected, of which results were declared for 17,262 seats in Special BTC Course 2008 and 12,995 for general selections in BTC 2008 seats, totalling 30257 seats. In this manner the vacancies on 6408 posts are still lying vacant. He submits that the directions issued by learned Single Judge challenged in these Special Appeals for closing admission process to Special BTC Course 2008, has not only deprived the petitioners of an opportunity of selection for appointment as teachers in Primary Schools in the State of UP, but will also result in wastage of 6408 seats.
4.    The recruitment for the post of teachers in Junior Basic Schools/Senior Basic Schools is made through direct recruitment at the level of Assistant Teacher of Junior Basic Schools, with appointment on higher post being made by way of promotion from amongst such Assistant Teachers of Junior Basic Schools. The recruitment of Assistant Teachers at entry level is governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981, under which the appointment is made of the candidates possessing qualifications specified in the rules and which includes Basic Teacher's Certificate. The Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC) is a two years training course, admission to which is made by an entrance examination conducted at the level of the State Government. After successful completion of two years' training, the candidates are entitled for appointment as Assistant Teachers. The admission to BTC Course is not made every year. The irregular admissions and shortage of the training Colleges resulted into shortage of teachers in primary schools in the State of UP. The number of candidates to be admitted to BTC Course in District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) is limited to about 100 or 200 seats available in individual DIET every year, which cannot fulfill the requirement of the appointment on the vacancies which accumulated to more than one lakh posts.
5.    The State Government took a decision in the year 1998, for making selections for six months special training course referred to as Special BTC Course and on successful completion thereof by the candidates who possess other teacher's qualification like B.Ed, L.T. Training certification, Diploma in Physical Education and Bachelor of Physical Education. On successful completion of training such candidates were granted appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Education run by the Basic Education Board.
6.    Despite admission to Special BTC Course in the years 1998, 2004 and 2007 a large number of vacant posts continued to exist in the State. In the year 2007 the State Government forwarded a proposal to National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) for permission to hold Special BTC training course. The National Council for Teacher Education by order dated 20.9.2007 granted permission of training of additional 28,385 candidates for primary teachers apart from the permission already given with regard to 60,000 such additional candidates, thereby totalling 88,385 seats.
7.    In pursuance to the permission granted by the NCTE dated 29.9.2007 the State Government issued a Government Order dated 14.11.2008 notifying admission to BTC Course 2008 and Special BTC Course 2008 (special recruitment) for filling up 28,385 posts of Assistant Teachers. The advertisements were issued inviting applications from candidates possessing other teacher's training qualification like B.Ed, LT training certificate, Diploma in Physical Education and Bachelor of Physical Education for selections for admission to six months Special BTC course with ultimate objectives for grant of appointment as Assistant Teachers. No restriction was imposed with regard to the number of districts for which a candidate could apply so that each of the applicant had applied for consideration for such admission in several districts in the State.
8.    On the basis of applications received from time to time cut of aggregate of percentage was notified for admission to different batches of Special BTC Training Course 2008 to be conducted in several rounds comprising of three months theory classes in DIET and three months practical classes in the institute itself.
9.    It is stated that despite several rounds of such training a large number seats for Special BTC Course 2008 and General Selections of 2008 are still vacant in the State. Several vacancies, which were required to be filled up from amongst reserved category candidates belonging to science category, were converted to arts category on account of non-availability of candidates under science category.
10.    It is submitted that by the impugned orders passed without giving any reasons at all the process has been abruptly closed leaving these vacancies unfilled and thereby violating petitioners' rights, who were otherwise qualified, to be considered for selection for training and for appointment.
11.    A counter affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar Chaurasia, Professor, State Institute of Science Education, Research and Training, Allahabad has been filed on behalf of State respondents stating that the process was initiated for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools in the State of UP run by the UP Basic Education Board by issuing Government order dated 14.11.2008 for Special BTC Training 2008 (Special Selection) and Special B.T.C. Training-2008 including 10,084 posts of Special BTC Training 2008 (Special Selection) and 18301 posts for Special BTC Training 2008. Out of these 8878 seats of Special BTC Training 2007, could not be filled up as sufficient number of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes candidates were not available. These seats were also included in the selections. The selection was to be made from various classes/categories of female/male and Arts/Science, providing for reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Castes. On account of non-availability of some categories, some of the seats remained vacant on which by a partial modification of the Government order dated 14.11.2008, a Government order dated 29.10.2009 and thereafter Government orders dated 4.3.2011 and 13.4.2011 were issued in respect of Special BTC Course 2008. When the selections were in process, a Writ Petition (PIL) No.19806 of 2011 (Ved Narain Payasi and others vs. State of UP and others) was filed in which an order was passed on the statement of Standing Counsel appearing for State Government that the result of Special BTC Course 2008 has been finalised and will be published in daily newspapers and on website. The communication will also be sent to the successful candidates by registered post. In view of that the Court directed the entire exercise to be completed within two months.
12.    It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in the matter of Shri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi the Supreme Court passed an order on 29.10.2010 directing the candidates, who have obtained B.P.Ed from other States and the directions issued by Full Bench on 13.8.2010 in Writ Petition No.3733 of 2009 (Jitendra Kumar Soni vs. State of UP and others) for making the candidates with B.Ed degree from Jammu and Kashmir eligible for BTC Training Course 2008, and on account of Government orders dated 4.10.2011 and the clarification issued on 21.10.2011 the selection process was in progress for such candidates and for adjusting the candidates of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/female in Science category in SC/ST/ Female in Arts and Male in Arts category. For these reasons the selection process could not be completed within the time allowed by this Court within two months from 6.4.2011. The Writ Petition (PIL) No.19806 of 2011 (Ved Narain Payasi and others vs. State of UP and others) was disposed of on 6.4.2011. A Contempt Petition No.4257 of 2011 (Ved Narain Payasi and others vs. Dinesh Chandra Kanaujia, Director) was filed in which a counter affidavit has been filed. The contempt petition is still pending.
13.    It is further stated in the counter affidavit, that in the meantime in Writ Petition No.69672 of 2011 (Dinesh Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of UP and others) by an order dated 22.12.2011 the Court directed the selection process of Special BTC Course 2008 to be completed in another two months. In the meantime, the legislative assembly elections were announced and the Model Code of Conduct became operative from 24.12.2011, on which the selection process was stopped upto March, 2012. Thereafter reminders were sent to District Institute of Education and Training for complying with the orders of the High Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of UP (supra). Since the orders could not be complied with, directions were issued for personal appearance of the officers unless they comply with the order. Finally on 23.5.2012 directions were issued by the Court summoning the officers to show cause as to why the process has not been completed within the time granted by the High Court. On 3.7.2012 the Secretary, Basic Education Board, UP and Director, State Educational Research and Training Board personally appeared in contempt matter and filed an affidavit in which he informed the Courts that the recruitment to Special BTC Course 2008 shall be positively closed on or before 31.7.2012 and on which the Court passed an order on 4.7.2012, which has been challenged in this Special Appeal.
14.    On 24.1.2013 the Court passed an order in Special Appeals as follows:-

"We have heard the parties at length.

State may file a counter affidavit to the affidavit supporting the stay application in this appeal within two weeks positively. Apart from replying to as many paragraphs as may be possible within this short period of two weeks, the Director S.C.E.R.T. will also specify in the counter affidavit as to whether, if the impugned order dated 4.7.2012 had not been passed by the learned Single Judge and the Director had to taken his own independent decision for closing the counselling, what decision he would have taken and why.

As requested by both sides, list this case for further hearing in the week commencing 11thFebruary, 2013."

15. In response to the query the State of UP has given a reply that since the candidates applied in accordance with the Government Orders in more than one districts, the applications received for 20-30 times the number of seats. The select list issued after verifying the qualifications in each districts issued several times, still the seats remained vacant as the time scheduled was revised from time to time on account of the orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court making the candidates, who had passed B.Ed examination from outside the State and from Jammu and Kashmir eligible in the selections. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed in these Special Appeals that so far as Special BTC Course 2007 is concerned, the seats could not be filled up despite issuing seven lists on which selection process was closed on 11.12.2008. Some of the candidates, who had applied in Special BTC Course 2007 challenged the closure of the proceedings. In Special Appeal No.1772 of 2009 (Pravesh Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others) this Court upheld the directions issued by the State Government on 11.12.2008 to close the selection process observing:- "It was the State Government to have decided the extent to which the merit was to be lowered in the selections and to stop the counselling. The number 7 may not a rational or any reason in it except the fact that seven rounds of counselling was more than sufficient chances, which could be given to the candidates in a selection. The process had to come to an end at some point of time, without compromising with merits. The State Government in its reply in response to the orders passed by this Court on 24.1.2013 has taken a stand that even if the order dated 4.7.2012 was not passed directing the selection process for Special BTC Course 2008 to be closed, considering the facts that despite several select lists being issued the candidates did not appear for selection and seats remained vacant, the Director SCERT, UP would have recommended the State Government to close the selection process for Special BTC Course 2008.
16.    Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants, who have been given leave to file these appeals, states that there is no rational behind a decision to close the selection process leaving 6408 seats vacant, depriving the petitioners-appellants and many other eligible persons from selection, when there are still thousand of vacancies lying vacant in the primary schools in the State of UP. He submits that apart from the rights of the primary school students under Article 21-A of Constitution of India; and the enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the rights of petitioners have also been seriously affected by closing the process of selections.
17.    We do not find any arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision taken by the State respondents to close the proceedings of selection of Special BTC Course 2008 on the ground that despite several rounds of counselling and conversion of the seats reserved for SC/ST/OBC for Females in Science category to SC/ST/OBC Female and Male candidates in Arts category, the seats could not be filled up due to non-appearance of the candidates notified in respective lists. It is also not advisable for the State Government to wait indefinitely to fill up the posts in any one selection. In State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha 1997 AIR SC 2216 and State of UP and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330 it was held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only to perform a legal duty, which the statute imposes upon the authorities. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to fill up all the advertised vacancies, the petitioners do not have any right to these unfilled vacancies, and thus the action of the State Government in such case cannot be treated to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
18.    In the present case, apart from the reasons given for closing the selections we also find that in the meantime the Parliament has enacted Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, under which the National Council for Teachers Education has been notified and declared as the Competent Authority. In a notification issued by the State Government dated 23.8.2010 the Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET) has been prescribed as the qualification for Primary School Teachers and has been made compulsory for appointment for all candidates. In view of this notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the Central Government, it is no longer permissible for the candidates, who have passed B.Ed examination or had completed any special course or bridge course to apply and be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by the UP Basic Education Board unless they have passed TET examinations. The TET Examination 2011 was held and that the candidates, who have passed the examination, are being appointed in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the State Government.
19.    In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12908 of 2013
(Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & others) and other connected writ petitions, a Full Bench of this Court considered the question, 'as to whether the Teachers' Eligibility Test is a test for qualification' and held as follows:

"The 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).


20.    In view of the above discussion, we do not find that the directions issued by learned Single Judge to put the selection process for Special BTC Course 2008 to close by 31.7.2012, require any interference in appeals. Learned Single Judge has in his brief order after considering the entire facts and circumstances relying upon the affidavit of the Director, SCERT, Allahabad has issued directions, which are neither arbitrary nor illegal. Every recruitment has to come to an end at some point of time. With the change in the scenario after enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the prescription of Teachers' Eligibility Test as qualification for applying for the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary School, which has also been incorporated under the UP Basic Education Teachers Act, 1981, it is no longer possible for the Court to issue directions to the State Government to fill up all the seats of Special BTC Course 2008, and to continue to appoint the Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools on the basis of such qualifications indefinitely.
21.    All the Special Appeals are dismissed.
Dt. 20.08.2013
RKP/


Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : Candidate wants to correct her result of UPTET 2011 Junior Level, Court Dismissed Her Petition

 Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : Candidate wants to correct her result of UPTET 2011 Junior Level, Court Dismissed Her Petition





 See Judgement : -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42442 of 2013
Petitioner :- Shakuntala Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Manav Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature for Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 for Junior Primary Level Examination under O.B.C category and has been issued with admit card bearing roll no. 07045895. Petitioner claims that she was provided question sheet no. 160405 and answer sheet no. 639945 and further submits that result of the aforesaid examination has been declared and his marks have been changed. Petitioner submits that she applied under R.T.I Act 2005 for getting information but vide letter dated 20.06.2013 authorities have declined to give requisite information to the petitioner. At this juncture petitioner is before this Court.
Earlier before this Court Bunch of writ petitions have been filed, the leading one being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71563 of 2011 (Lalit Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), pointing out large scale illegalities being there and this Court considered the matter at length, proceeded to dispose of said writ petition with following directions:
29. In the facts and circumstances, in view of discussion made above, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:
(I) Question No.121, Series 'B', J.L.E. contain all wrong options and, therefore, it shall be treated a wrong question. Consequently the marks in respect of Question no. 121, Series 'B', J.L.E. shall be allotted to all candidates who have appeared in the concerned test. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in
remaining Series namely, 'A', 'C' and 'D' in J.L.E.
(II) In respect of Question no.125, Series 'B' JLE, the candidates answering any of the options i.e., 'B' or 'C' shall be awarded marks. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in remaining Series namely, 'A', 'C' and 'D' in J.L.E.
(III) In respect of Question No. 142, Series 'B' JLE, the candidates who have answered any of the options i.e., 'A' or 'D' shall be awarded marks. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in remaining Series namely, 'A', 'C' and 'D' in J.L.E.
(IV) Revised opinion of the Board with respect to Questions shown in the charts in para 5 above (other than asterisk marked) shall not affect adversely the result of the candidates already declared successful merely for the reason of change of opinion of the Board vis a vis correct option.
(V) All the candidates who have attempted these questions and have answered by referring to one of the two options, namely, the one which was correct as per initial Model Key Answer or that which is now correct as per the revised opinion, the candidates in both the events shall be awarded marks and their result shall be prepared
accordingly.
(VI) The Board shall publish a notice at least in four newspapers of different languages having wide circulation at the State level informing all concerned that in case any candidate has any grievance regarding UPTET Examination, 2011, about assessment etc., he may register his complaint by submitting application along with process fee of Rs. 100/per application (by cash or by demand draft) within 15 days from the date of publication in the newspapers.
(VII) The Board shall entertain all applications of the candidates raising their grievance regarding assessment etc. and shall look into their grievance and take a decision thereon within a week from the date of receipt of such application. Such decision shall be communicated to the candidate concerned within a week thereafter either by placing information on internet or on mail address given by the candidate or by registered post.
(VIII) The candidates who are already declared successful, their result shall not be affected to their prejudice but in case in view of the directions give above regarding certain questions, if their marks are to be increased, the same shall be given due credit.
(IX) The revised result as a consequence of compliance of above directions shall be uploaded on internet and shall be given due publicity at the earliest."
The factual situation which has so emerged in the present case is that large number of writ petitions have been filed before this Court complaining illegalities which has been committed by the respondents and this Court has taken note of broadly the issues raised and thereafter this Court on 16.07.2011 proceeded to give direction. It is true that this Court gave liberty to candidates in case they have any grievance regarding UPTET Examination 2011 about assessment etc., they may register complaint by submitting application along with process fee of Rs. 100/per application (by cash or by demand draft) within 15 days from the date of publication in the newspapers and the Board shall entertain all applications of the candidates raising their grievance regarding assessment etc. and shall look into their grievance and take a decision thereon within a week from the date of receipt of such application. Such decision shall be communicated to the candidate concerned within a week thereafter either by placing information on internet or on mail address given by the candidate or by registered post.
In the present case petitioner, herself is responsible for such a situation by not filling an application within the time prescribed for moving application, as such no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner based on speculations.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2013
Dhruv




Read more...

UP Recruitment News : पीसीएसजे प्रा. परीक्षा परिणाम की चुनौती

UP Recruitment News : पीसीएसजे प्रा. परीक्षा परिणाम की चुनौती
इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में पीसीएस (जे) 2013 की प्रारंभिक परीक्षा में सात सवालों के उत्तर गलत होने के कारण परिणाम की वैधता को लेकर याचिकाएं दाखिल की गई हैं। कोर्ट ने याचिका में लगाए गए आरोपों को गंभीरता से लेते हुए लोक सेवा आयोग को विशेषज्ञों से परीक्षण कराकर कोर्ट को अवगत कराने का निर्देश दिया है। मामले की अगली सुनवाई 25 सितम्बर को नियत की है। मुख्य परीक्षा 28 सितम्बर को प्रस्तावित है।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति राजेश कुमार तथा न्यायमूर्ति मनोज मिश्र की खण्डपीठ ने श्रेयश्री अग्रवाल, अनुरुद्ध कुमार सहित दर्जनों अभ्यर्थियों द्वारा दायर याचिकाओं की सुनवाई करते हुए दिया है। याचिका पर अधिवक्ता अनिल तिवारी ने कोर्ट को बताया कि प्रारंभिक परीक्षा में विधि पेपर के सात सवालों के जवाब गलत हैं। सामान्य ज्ञान के भी कुछ सवालों के उत्तर गलत हैं। इसकी वजह से सही उत्तर देने वाले सफल नहीं हुए और गलत उत्तर देने वालों को इसका लाभ मिला। इस कारण याचियों को भी मुख्य परीक्षा में बैठने दिया जाए। इन्होंने सही उत्तर दिए हैं। आयोग के अधिवक्ता का कहना था कि प्रश्नों के उत्तर विशेषज्ञों द्वारा चेक किए गए हैं। कोर्ट ने आयोग के विशेषज्ञों पर भी चुटकी ली और कहा कि प्रश्न के उत्तरों की पुन: जांच करा ली जाय। प्रथम दृष्टया कुछ प्रश्नों के उत्तर गलत लग रहे हैं। याची का कहना था कि यदि प्रश्नों के सही उत्तर के आधार पर अंक दिए जाते हैं तो परिणाम की मेरिट प्रभावित होगी। ऐसे में याचियों को मुख्य परीक्षा में बैठने की अनुमति दी जाय

News Sabhaar : Jagran (19.9.13)


Read more...

संविदा शाला शिक्षक वर्ग अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट की शरण में

संविदा शाला शिक्षक वर्ग अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट की शरण में

दिपेन्द्र सेन 0982986032। सरफरोशी की तमन्ना अब हमारे दिल में है, देखना है जोर कितना बाजुऐ कातिल में है:- प्रिय नवयुवक मित्रों पहली बार हमारें अधिकारों की जो ज्वाला सम्पूर्ण मध्य प्रदेश के 50 जिलों में धधकी है इसे बुझनें मत देना, इसे तो अब इतना प्रचण्ड रूप देना है कि शिक्षा विभाग का भ्रष्टाचारी रावण जलकर खाख में मिल जाये।
ये हमारे भविष्य की आखरी लडाई है जिसे हमें हर हाल में जीतना ही होगा चाहे हमें अब कांग्रेस से मिलना पडे जिसे ग्वालियर जिले के अभ्यार्थी आसानी से कर सकते है। वर्तमान मेें म.प्र. शिक्षा विभाग एक ईस्ट इण्डिया कम्पनी है और ये क्रान्ति 1857 की क्रान्ति और हम क्रान्तिकारी है इन्ही में से कई क्रान्तिकारी कल भोपाल थाने में बन्द तक कर दिये गये थे यदि जेल जाने से ही हमें अपने अधिकार मिलेंगे तो हम उसके लिए भी तैयार है। अब इस क्रान्ति के लिए एक झांसी की रानी लक्ष्मीबाई की भी आवश्यकता है क्योकि लडकियों एवं महिलाओं को नौकरी तो चाहिये पर उनका योगदान अंश मात्र है उनके स्थान पर उनके भाई,पिता या पति इस क्रान्ति में सहयोग करे।

हम सभी इस बात से अवगत है कि द्वितीय चरण में भी पुराने नियमों के आधार पर ही सत्यापन किया जा रहा है तो फिर द्वितीय चरण में विभाग किन अभ्यार्थीयों का सत्यापन करना चाहता है किसके लिए इतनी बडी व्यवस्था की गई है जबकि पुराने नियमों की योग्यता वाले सभी अभ्यार्थीयों का चयन पहले ही हो चुका है। विभाग ने विस्तृत विज्ञापन न तो 16.09.2013 को दिया और न ही 18.09.2013 को दिया और 17.09.2013 को एक संक्षिप्त विज्ञापन दिया जो एक गोलमोल विज्ञापन है ताकि विधार्थी भ्रम में रहे और किसी को कुछ समझ ही न आऐं। विभाग की इसमें एक गहरी सोची समझी साजिश है जैसाकि विभाग पहले भी चिकित्सकों की फर्जी भर्ती में कर चुका है।

वर्तमान में केवल प्रतिक्षा सूची वर्ग 1,2,3 की प्रकिया ही उचित है जिससे हमें किसी प्रकार की आपत्ति नही है लेकिन सत्यापन प्रक्रिया पर हमें शीध्र उच्च न्यायालय जबलपुर से स्टे आर्डर लेना होगा और राजपत्र लागू होने पर ही सत्यापन प्रक्रिया प्रारम्भ करवानी होगी। हमारे कई नैतृत्वकर्ता टुकडियाॅ लेकर आज जबलपुर उच्च न्यायालय के लिए रवाना हो चुके है और उसके बाद दिल्ली सर्वोच्च न्यायालय तक हम अपने अधिकारों के लिए पीछे नहीं हटेंगे इसके लिए हमें आप सभी के पूर्ण सहयोग की आवश्यकता है। अब हमें 30 अगस्त 2013 एजूकेशन पोर्टल का राजपत्र तथा 4 सितम्बर 2013 का म.प्र. राजपत्र को लागू करवाना है जो मध्य प्रदेश सरकार के द्वारा हाल ही में बनाया गया है क्योंकि इस राजपत्र में वर्ग 1,2,3 के सभी अभ्यार्थीयों प्रशिक्षित व अप्रशिक्षित तथा अनुसूचित जाति, अनुसचित जनजाति तथा पिछडा वर्ग की 5ः छूट आदि सभी प्रकार के नियमों का उल्लेख है।

इन राजपत्रों में जो नियम अब दिये गये है वह नियम हमारी विज्ञप्ति तथा पात्रता परीक्षा के पहले से ही भारत के राजपत्र 2 अगस्त 2011 में वर्णित है इसलिए उच्च न्यायालय या सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के माध्यम से हम इन्हे लागू करवाऐंगे क्योकि हमारी पात्रता परीक्षा की वैधता जनवरी 2015 तक है
News Sabhaar : Facebook

Read more...

टीईटी उत्तीर्ण छात्रों का प्रदर्शन, पुलिस से झड़प

टीईटी उत्तीर्ण छात्रों का प्रदर्शन, पुलिस से झड़प
नियुक्ति की मांग पर बनाई मानव शृंखला, आज कैंडल मार्च निकालने की तैयारी

इलाहाबाद सहायक अध्यापक 72825 पदों पर नियुक्ति की मांग को लेकर टीईटी पास छात्रों ने बृहस्पतिवार को हाईकोर्ट के बाहर मानव शृंखला बनाई। छात्र शिक्षा निदेशालय अनशन स्थल से जुलूस की शक्ल में हाईकोर्ट पहुंचे। इस दौरान छात्रों की वहां मौजूद सुरक्षा कर्मियों और पुलिस से झड़प भी हुई। छात्रों की मांग है कि हाईकोर्ट टीईटी पर जल्द से जल्द अपना निर्णय दे, जिससे हजारों छात्रों को नियुक्ति मिल सके। आंदोलन के अगले चरण में टीईटी उत्तीर्ण शुक्रवार को कैंडल जुलूस निकालेंगे।
हाईकोर्ट के बाहर प्रदर्शन करने के बाद छात्र वापस जुलूस के शक्ल में अनशन स्थल पहुंचे और वहां पर सभा की। प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक आवेदक संघर्ष मोर्चा के अध्यक्ष मनोज मौर्य ने कहा कि लाखों की तादाद में छात्र आवेदन करने के बाद भी नियुक्ति का इंतजार कर रहे हैं। लेकिन अभी तक उन्हें नौकरी नसीब नहीं हुई। छात्राें का कहना है कि 31 मार्च 2014 के बाद प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में बीएड छात्रों को सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी जानी है। मार्च 2014 में बहुत ज्यादा दिन बाकी नहीं है। ऐसे में अगर अब भी भर्ती प्रक्रिया शुरू नहीं की गई तो हजारों छात्रों का भविष्य बर्बाद हो जाएगा। भाजपा युवा मोर्चा के महानगर अध्यक्ष नरसिंह ने छात्रों को आश्वासन दिया कि वो उनकी मांग शासन तक पहुंचाएंगे। प्रदर्शन के दौरान संजय पांडेय, विजय द्विवेदी, सुभाष यादव, अखिलेश यादव, कुलदीप सिंह, दुर्गेश पांडेय, रणविजय आदि रहे।
परिषदीय विद्यालयों में शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों पर भर्ती की मांग को लेकर बृहस्पतिवार को हाईकोर्ट के सामने प्रदर्शन करते टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थी और उन्हें हटाती पुलिस

News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (20.9.13)


Read more...

टीईटी उत्तीर्ण छात्रों का प्रदर्शन, पुलिस से झड़प

टीईटी उत्तीर्ण छात्रों का प्रदर्शन, पुलिस से झड़प
नियुक्ति की मांग पर बनाई मानव शृंखला, आज कैंडल मार्च निकालने की तैयारी

इलाहाबाद (ब्यूरो)। सहायक अध्यापक 72825 पदों पर नियुक्ति की मांग को लेकर टीईटी पास छात्रों ने बृहस्पतिवार को हाईकोर्ट के बाहर मानव शृंखला बनाई। छात्र शिक्षा निदेशालय अनशन स्थल से जुलूस की शक्ल में हाईकोर्ट पहुंचे। इस दौरान छात्रों की वहां मौजूद सुरक्षा कर्मियों और पुलिस से झड़प भी हुई। छात्रों की मांग है कि हाईकोर्ट टीईटी पर जल्द से जल्द अपना निर्णय दे, जिससे हजारों छात्रों को नियुक्ति मिल सके। आंदोलन के अगले चरण में टीईटी उत्तीर्ण शुक्रवार को कैंडल जुलूस निकालेंगे।
हाईकोर्ट के बाहर प्रदर्शन करने के बाद छात्र वापस जुलूस के शक्ल में अनशन स्थल पहुंचे और वहां पर सभा की। प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक आवेदक संघर्ष मोर्चा के अध्यक्ष मनोज मौर्य ने कहा कि लाखों की तादाद में छात्र आवेदन करने के बाद भी नियुक्ति का इंतजार कर रहे हैं। लेकिन अभी तक उन्हें नौकरी नसीब नहीं हुई। छात्राें का कहना है कि 31 मार्च 2014 के बाद प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में बीएड छात्रों को सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी जानी है। मार्च 2014 में बहुत ज्यादा दिन बाकी नहीं है। ऐसे में अगर अब भी भर्ती प्रक्रिया शुरू नहीं की गई तो हजारों छात्रों का भविष्य बर्बाद हो जाएगा। भाजपा युवा मोर्चा के महानगर अध्यक्ष नरसिंह ने छात्रों को आश्वासन दिया कि वो उनकी मांग शासन तक पहुंचाएंगे। प्रदर्शन के दौरान संजय पांडेय, विजय द्विवेदी, सुभाष यादव, अखिलेश यादव, कुलदीप सिंह, दुर्गेश पांडेय, रणविजय आदि रहे।
परिषदीय विद्यालयों में शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों पर भर्ती की मांग को लेकर बृहस्पतिवार को हाईकोर्ट के सामने प्रदर्शन करते टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थी और उन्हें हटाती पुलिस

News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (20.9.13)


Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : 40 वर्ष वाले भी शिक्षक भर्ती में होंगे शामिल

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : 40 वर्ष वाले भी शिक्षक भर्ती में होंगे शामिल

 
•मंत्री चौधरी ने कहा, 5 साल बढ़ेगी आयुसीमा



*************
Good news for GEN candidates, whose age crossed 35 years -
See news -
लखनऊ । बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के उच्च प्राइमरी स्कूलों में गणित व विज्ञान शिक्षकों की भर्ती की आयु सीमा में पांच वर्ष का विस्तार किया जाएगा। अब यह 40 वर्ष होगी। यह जानकारी बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री राम गोविंद चौधरी ने दी।
बृहस्पतिवार को यहां रमाबाई अंबेडर मैदान में आयोजित राज्य स्तरीय इंस्पायर अवार्ड प्रदर्शनी में शिरकत करने पहुंचे बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री ने पत्रकारों द्वारा उठाए गए सवालों के जवाब में यह जानकारी दी। इस संबंध में जल्द ही शासनादेश जारी किए जाने की उम्मीद है। नवंबर 2011 में हुई टीईटी में पास हजारों ऐसे अभ्यर्थी हैं, जिनकी आयु 35 वर्ष से अधिक हो चुकी है। उन्होंने इस संबंध में शासन से लेकर बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव तक से गुहार लगाई थी कि आयु सीमा 5 वर्ष और बढ़ा दी जाए ताकि उन्हें भी मौका मिल सके। उल्लेखनीय है कि उच्च प्राइमरी स्कूलों में पहली बार विज्ञान व गणित के 29,334 शिक्षक के पदों पर सीधी भर्ती के लिए आवेदन ऑनलाइन लिए जा रहे हैं।

News Sabhaar :  अमर उजाला(20.9.13)
***************************
Many candidates of GENERAL category crossed 35 years age, and if relaxation of 5 years happens then it will be boon for GEN candidates.

Read more...

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : विसंगतियों के खिलाफ कोर्ट जाएंगे अभ्यर्थी

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : विसंगतियों के खिलाफ कोर्ट जाएंगे अभ्यर्थी








इलाहाबाद : सहायक अध्यापक उच्च प्राथमिक (गणित-विज्ञान) की भर्ती में सहायक अध्यापकों द्वारा विशिष्ट बीटीसी प्रशिक्षण प्रमाण पत्र का प्रयोग करने पर बीएड मोर्चा ने आपत्ति जताई है। बीएड डिग्रीधारी विभिन्न विसंगतियों के खिलाफ हाईकोर्ट जाने की तैयारी में हैं

बीएड मोर्चा का तर्क है कि इससे बीएड डिग्रीधारियों का इस भर्ती प्रक्रिया में अवसर सीमित हो गया है। बीएड मोर्चा ने इसके पीछे तर्क दिया है कि उच्च प्राथमिक कक्षा छह से आठ तक के लिए भर्ती हो रही है जिसके लिए बीएड खुद आधारभूत प्रशिक्षण है। विशिष्ट बीटीसी प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में नियुक्त शिक्षक इस भर्ती में विशिष्ट बीटीसी प्रशिक्षण प्रमाण पत्र का प्रयोग कर रहे हैं। चूंकि यह भर्ती उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों के लिए हो रही है जिसमें बीएड स्वयं आधारभूत प्रशिक्षण है जो इसके अध्यापकों के लिए पूर्ण प्रशिक्षण है।

अभ्यर्थियों का तर्क है कि इस प्रशिक्षण में सैद्धांतिक में मुश्किल से 20 फीसद प्रशिक्षुओं को सैद्धांतिक में प्रथम श्रेणी मिल पाती है। विशिष्ट बीटीसी का प्रशिक्षण महज छह माह का अर्हता प्रमाण पत्र है। यह प्रशिक्षण प्राथमिक विद्यालयों के लिए है। इस प्रशिक्षण में 99 फीसद प्रशिक्षुओं को सैद्धांतिक में प्रथम श्रेणी मिल जाता है। सहायता प्राप्त अनुदानित विद्यालयों में जहां पहले से सीधी भर्ती चली आ रही है वहां सिर्फ बीएड व बीटीसी ही योग्यता निर्धारित है। 1999 में विशिष्ट बीटीसी के शासनादेश में यह प्रशिक्षण मात्र अर्हता प्रमाण पत्र है। इसमें प्रशिक्षुओं को अंक पत्र तक नहीं दिया जाता। नियुक्त शिक्षक डायटों से अपना अंक पता करके आवेदन कर रहे हैं। बीएड डिग्रीधारकों ने अपने पक्ष में इसी तरह कई और तर्क दिए हैं। इन्हीं बिंदुओं और विसंगतियों को आधार बनाकर बीएड डिग्रीधारियों ने हाईकोर्ट जाने की योजना बनाई है

News Sabhaar : Jagran (19.9.13)

Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP / Allahabad Highcourt : Candidate obtained 43.2% Marks and want relaxation to appear in Selection for Upper Primary Teacher, Court Dismissed Her Petition

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP / Allahabad Highcourt : Candidate obtained 43.2% Marks and want relaxation to appear in Selection for Upper Primary Teacher, Court Dismissed Her Petition




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44191 of 2013
Petitioner :- Janaki Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for respondents.
Petitioner has approached this Court with request to extend him benefit of reservation as is available to scheduled caste/scheduled tribes under Clause 2 of the said advertisement in question.�
This Court has occasion to peruse the notification in question and as per the said notification in question incumbents who are interested in appearing in Teacher Eligibility Test for appointment in upgraded Primary level Classes Class VIth to VIIIth� minimum eligibility criteria as has been prescribed that an incumbent should have to his/her credit Graduation from the University recognized by the University Grants Commission and established under law with minimum 50% marks and coupled with this in reference of scheduled caste category candidate it has been clearly provided that minimum percentage of marks should be 45%.
Petitioner's submission before this Court that he is entitled for 5% further relaxation in the same, in view of this such relaxation in question should be extended to her.
Petitioner is labouring under misconception as in the notification� as well as in the Government Order minimum eligibility criteria has been provided for and in reference of scheduled caste category candidate, minimum percentage of marks has been provided for as 45% and as far as general category candidate are concerned qua them minimum percentage of marks has been provided for as 50%. Petitioner's submission is that she should be extended 5% further relaxation.�
There is no such authority provided for to accorded further relaxation in the minimum percentage of marks from 50% to 45% for General category candidate and for scheduled caste category from 45%to 40%.
Here as far as petitioner is concerned she has having 43.2% marks, as such petitioner cannot be accepted as eligible in view of this no relief as has been prayed for cannot be accorded to the petitioner.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2013
Dhruv



For authenticate / certified copy, kindly approach to concerned authority of Allahabad Highcourt.
Information given here is only informatory in nature.

Read more...

CTET 82/150 marks reserved category candidate is not eligible for UP Govt. Teachers Selection / Recruitment Process

CTET 82/150 marks reserved category candidate is not eligible for UP Govt. Teachers Selection / Recruitment Process






No relaxation to candidate, see judgement -
Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.


See Complete Judgement -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37084 of 2013
Petitioner :- Minakshi Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Srivastava,J.S.Lodhi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.K.Rai

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Minakashi Rai, petitioner has approached this Court with request to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Assistant Teacher treating 54.66% marks obtained by her as 55% obtained by her in C.T.E.T as petitioner has received 82 marks out of 150 i.e 54.66% and as the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi has already declared as qualified treating the aforesaid marks as 55% marks in C.T. E.T, and accordingly similar view be taken by the respondents.
Petitioner is OBC category candidate and she has completed her BTC course after completing graduation. Petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature for C.T.E.T (Central Teachers Eligibility Test) and in the said examination petitioner has received 82 marks out of 150 marks which comes as 54.66% and the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi, treating the same as 55% marks has proceeded to declare the petitioner as qualified and a note has also been appended therein that said qualification is applicable for recruitment of teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi.
Applications thereafter have been invited for making selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parisad vide order dated 26.04.2013 and therein eligibility criteria has been prescribed as follows:
1.     avkosnu gasrw ik=rk
(i)    'kSf{kd vgZrk& lgk;d v/;kid ds inks ij p;u@fu;qfDr gsrq ,sls vH;FkhZ ik= gksxs tks Hkkjr es fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; ls Lukrd dh mikf/k j[krs gks jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqla/kku ,oa izf'k{k.k ifj"kn m0 iz0 }kjk vk;ksftr nks o"khZ; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k nks o"hkZ; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k fof'k"V ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ fd, gks m0iz0 vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr d{kk 1 ls 5 gsrq v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ fd,s gksA ;gk ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd f'k{kd izk=rk ijh{kk es lQy vH;FkhZ og gksxs ftUgksus U;wure 60 izfr'kr vad izkIr fd, gks ysfdu vuqlfpr tkfr@vuqlfpr tutkfr @ vU; fiNMk oxZ @ HkwriwoZ lSfud @ fodykax Js.kh @ Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ks ds fy, U;wure iw.kkZd 55 izfr'kr gksA
Petitioner's submission is that her candidature has not at all been considered by the respondents on account of the fact that petitioner has not at all got to her credit 55% marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test as such petitioner's candidature cannot be considered same being not in consonance with the advertisement accordingly petitioner is before this Court.
Sri Jitendra Singh Lodhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once Central Teachers Eligibility Test has been passed by the petitioner and therein she has received 54.66% marks and same has been accepted to be 55% marks by rounding up the same and thereafter accordingly she has been declared as qualified then there is no occasion to treat the petitioner as ineligible in view of this rejection of petitioner's candidature is per se bad.
Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate on the other hand contended that selection and appointment is to be made in the institution run and managed by Basis Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and in consoance with the provision as contained under U.P. Basic Education Tehacer Serivce Rules 1981, the eligibility criteria has been fixed and therein clear cut mention has been made that incumbent should have to his/her credit graduation degree and should have to his/her credit BTC certificate of training and should have successfully passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted either by State Government or Central Government and clarification has also been given that only those candidate shall be considered as eligible who have to his/her credit minimum 60% marks for general category and for Scheduled caste / Scheduled Tribe category candidate, OBC category candidate/ Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter category candidate should have to his/her credit minimum 55% marks.
It is true that petitioner has qualified Central Teachers Eligibility Test as therein out of 150 marks, she has obtained 82 marks i.e. 54.66% and Central Board of Secondary Education in its turn has proceeded to round up the marks of petitioner by treating the same as 55% and petitioner has been shown to have qualified with asterix mark and accordingly as per said asterix mark note has been appended clearly mentioning that said qualification is applicable for recruitment of teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi.
Petitioner submits that in the past once her 54.66% marks has been rounded off to 55% by the Central Board of Secondary New Delhi then Basic Shiksha Parishad should also treated the same as 55% marks.
Eligibility criteria as has been prescribed is governed by the statutory Rules known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 as amended up till date and once in consonace with the aforesaid Rules qualification and eligibility criteria has been provided for and same clearly proceeds to mention that incumbent should have passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted either by the State Government or by the Central Government and the candidates of General category should have obtained minimum 60% marks and the candidates of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes, OBC/Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter should have obtained minimum 55% marks.
This is also fully reflected in the present case, that as far as Central Teacher Eligibility Test is concerned, same is governed by Central Teacher Eligibility Test Rules, 2011 (C.T.E.T), and same is in reference to schools, affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education. Said Rules in itself provides for applicablity of the same, and also categorically proceeds to mention, that schools owned and managed by the State Government/ Local Bodies and aided shcools shall consider the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the State Government. However a State Government can also consider CTET if it decides not to conduct State TET.
Here the State Govenremnt does condut its own State TET, but in its wisdom has chosen to give opportunity to incumbents who have passed TET conducted by Central Government, but such opportunity has been restricted qua those category of candidates who have recevied 55% minimum marks in CTET. Central Board of Secondary Education, for institutions affiliated to it can round up 54.66% marks to 55% marks, but when it comes to claimig appointment in institution, run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, said rounding of would be of no consequence and candidate will have to have to his credit minimum 55% in Teachers Eligibility Test.
Accepted position is that petitioner has not obtained minimum 55% marks and has obtained 54.66% marks and petitioner submits that theory of rounding up to be passed and she should be treated as eligible.
Question is can 54.66% marks in aggregate be treated minimum 55% in aggregate ? Admittedly 54.66% marks in aggregate are less than 55% marks in aggregate. In view of this by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that petitioner has to her credit the eligibility criteria so prescribed. Said issue has already been negated by this Court, as per the judgement in the case of Ranjana Kushwaha Vs. state of U.P. 2009 (2) E&MC 94, wherein also requirement was minimum 45% and candidate had received 44.8% , therein candidate have been held to be ineligible, and in the said judgement, the two earlier judgements have been referred to wherein 49.67 % and 49.66% have not been accepted as equivalent to 50%, namely the case of Vani Pali Tripathi Vs. Director, 2003(1) UPLBEC 427; Pranjal Bishnoi Vs. U.P. Technical University 2003 (3) ESC 1470. In such a situation 54.66% specilly marks cannot be treated as equivalent to 55% when emphasis is given in the eligibility criteria, to the minimum marks to be there, then said minimum makes has to be obtained by concerned candidate and there can not be any scope of compromise with the same by invoking principal of rounding up. State of U.P. has already fixed the minimum marks to be obtained by the candidate i.e. minimum 60% by the General candidates and candidates of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes, OBC/Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter should have obtained minimum 55% marks. Said percentage of marks as fixed on the minimum side cannot be further lowered.
Apex Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission vs Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6201 OF 2011) decided on 02.08.2011 reported in 2011 (8) SCC 108 has taken view that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement is being extracted below:
"9. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off.
10.There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same then it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
12.The entire record of the main written examination was also produced before us which indicates that there are also candidates who have got more than the respondent in the aggregate but has not been able to get 33% marks in each paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks in each paper in the Main written examination could and should have also been called for viva-voce examination, which would amount to a very strange and complicated situation and also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of statutory provision.
13.When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.7.2013
Dhruv


For authenticate / certified copy, kindly approach to concerned authority of Allahabad Highcourt.
Information given here is only informatory in nature.

Read more...

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Recruitment : खर्चे कम करने में जुटी सरकार, सरकारी नौकरियों में नहीं होगी नई भर्ती


Recruitment : खर्चे कम करने में जुटी सरकार, सरकारी नौकरियों में नहीं होगी नई भर्ती

Central Govt stopped new recruitment process in government to reduce gov expenditure

नई दिल्ली । खजाने की हालत खराब होती देख सरकार खर्चो में कटौती करने में जुट गई है। गैर जरूरी खर्चो की तेज रफ्तार से राजकोषीय घाटे पर आ रहे दबाव को देखते हुए वित्त मंत्रालय ने सभी मंत्रालयों और विभागों के लिए किफायत के उपायों की नई फेहरिस्त जारी की है। अब न तो अधिकारी बिजनेस या एक्जीक्यूटिव श्रेणी में हवाई यात्रा कर सकेंगे और न ही सरकार के मंत्रालय व विभाग पांच सितारा होटलों में बैठक या कांफ्रेंस करेंगे।

वित्त मंत्री पी चिदंबरम ने चालू वित्त वर्ष में राजकोषीय घाटे को सकल घरेलू उत्पाद (जीडीपी) के 4.8 फीसद पर रखने का लक्ष्य रखा है। लेकिन डॉलर के मुकाबले रुपये की कीमत में हुई तेज गिरावट ने सरकार पर सब्सिडी का बोझ बढ़ा दिया है। इसके चलते न सिर्फ चालू खाते के घाटे पर दबाव बना है बल्कि राजकोषीय घाटा भी सरकार के लक्ष्य से ऊपर जाता दिख रहा है। इसे देखते हुए वित्त मंत्रालय ने बुधवार को गैर योजना खर्च में 10 फीसद कटौती के लिए कई उपायों का एलान किया है। हालांकि वित्त मंत्रालय ने यह नहीं बताया है कि इन उपायों से कितनी बचत होगी।

वित्त मंत्रालय ने सभी मंत्रालयों और विभागों को नए वाहनों की खरीद पर तुरंत प्रभाव से रोक लगाने का आदेश दिया है। ये मंत्रालय व विभाग एक साल से अधिक समय से रिक्त पड़े पदों पर नियुक्ति भी नहीं कर पाएंगे। साथ ही नए पद सृजित करने पर भी रोक लगा दी गई है। सभी मंत्रालयों व विभागों से विदेश दौरों का आकार भी सीमित रखने को कहा गया है। वित्त मंत्री ने मंगलवार को ही सभी मंत्रालयों के वित्त सलाहकारों के साथ बैठक कर सरकारी खर्च का जायजा लिया था। उसके बाद ही किफायत के इन उपायों का एलान किया गया है। खर्च में कटौती के ये उपाय एम्स और आल इंडिया रेडियो जैसी स्वायत्त संस्थाओं पर भी लागू होंगे। वित्त मंत्रालय ने स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि बजट में आवंटित राशि के अतिरिक्त वित्तीय मदद की उम्मीद सरकारी विभाग न करें।

सरकारी खर्च में किफायत के इस तरह के उपाय सरकार 2008-09 की मंदी के बाद से अक्सर उठाती रही है। खर्च में कटौती के इन्हीं उपायों को सरकार ने 2010-11 में भी अपनाया था। साल 2012-13 में भी राजकोषीय घाटे को काबू में करने के लिए वित्त मंत्री ने मंत्रालयों के योजना खर्च में 10 से 15 फीसद कटौती की थी। इससे सरकारी खजाने में करीब एक लाख करोड़ रुपये की बचत हुई थी।

किफायत के कदम

-इकोनामी श्रेणी में घरेलू हवाई यात्रा करने का आदेश

-विदेश या घरेलू हवाई यात्रा में पत्नी या सहयात्री के लिए टिकट पर पाबंदी

-पांच सितारा होटलों में सरकारी कांफ्रेंस और बैठकों पर रोक

-सभी विभागों में नई भर्ती और नए वाहनों की खरीद पर पाबंदी

-विदेश जाने वाले प्रतिनिधिमंडलों का आकार छोटा रखने के आदेश

-विदेश या घरेलू दौरों को सीमित करने की जिम्मेदारी विभाग के सचिव पर

-विदेशों में स्टडी टूर, वर्कशाप, कांफ्रेंस, सेमिनार, पेपर प्रेजेंटेशन के लिए सरकारी खर्च पर जाने की अनुमति नहीं

----------

किफायत की वजह

----------

-रुपये की कीमत घटने से सब्सिडी का बोझ बढ़ा

-राजकोषीय घाटे में तेज वृद्धि की आशंका

-योजना खर्च के मुकाबले गैर योजना खर्च की रफ्तार तेज

-चालू खाते का घाटा भी चिंता का विषय

News Sabhaar : Jagran (18.9.13)


Read more...

MPTET : संविदा शिक्षक भर्ती में पूरे मध्यप्रदेश में हंगामा, नियम ही समझ नहीं आ रहे


MPTET : संविदा शिक्षक भर्ती में पूरे मध्यप्रदेश में हंगामा, नियम ही समझ नहीं आ रहे

भोपाल। संविदा शिक्षक भर्ती की दूसरी प्रक्रिया में अधिकारियों की मनमानी और नियमों के अस्पष्ट होने के कारण पूरे प्रदेश में हंगामे हो रहे हैं। मध्यप्रदेश का शायद ही कोई जिला हो जहां हंगामा ना हुआ हो।

भोपाल के अलावा इन्दौर सहित लगभग सभी जिलों से हंगामे और प्रदर्शनों की खबरें आ रहीं हैं। संविदा शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थी स्वयं को ठगा सा महसूस कर रहे हैं। हाईकोर्ट के आदेशों का पालन भी इस भर्ती के दौरान दिखाई नहीं दे रहा है। मध्यप्रदेश के हर जिले में अस्पष्ट भर्ती नियमों के चलते विरोध हो रहा है।

इंदौर में जिला शिक्षा प्रशिक्षण केंद्र (डाइट) में संविदा शाला शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए डॉक्यूमेंट वेरिफिकेशन करवाने आए आवेदकों ने मंगलवार को हंगामा किया। कारण, शिक्षा विभाग सिर्फ बीएड, डीएड योग्यताधारकों का ही वेरिफिकेशन कर रहा था जबकि ज्यादातर आवेदकों के पास ये योग्यताएं नहीं थीं। इससे गुस्साए आवेदकों का कहना था कि जब सिर्फ बीएड, डीएड वालों को ही नौकरी देना थी तो हमारी परीक्षा क्यों ली? मौके पर पहुंची पुलिस ने आवेदकों को समझाकर रवाना किया।

संविदा शिक्षक-एक, दो और तीन की भर्ती के लिए पांच महीने बाद डॉक्यूमेंट वेरिफिकेशन का दूसरा चरण मंगलवार से शुरू हुआ। जब नॉन डीएड आवेदकों के वेरिफिकेशन से शिक्षा विभाग की टीम ने इनकार कर दिया तो वे नाराज हो गए। नाराज नॉन डीएड, बीएड आवेदकों ने जिला शिक्षाधिकारी संजय गोयल को कॉल लगाया। उन्होंने कॉल रिसीव नहीं किया आवेदक जनसुनवाई में पहुंच गए और प्रशासनिक संकुल के बाहर जमकर नारेबाजी की।

परेशान कर दिया, हमारे रुपए वापस दो
आवेदक वर्षा पटेरिया का कहना था कि अब दूसरा चरण है तो नॉन डीएड-बीएड आवेदकों का भी डॉक्यूमेंट वेरिफिकेशन करना चाहिए। हमने अच्छे नंबरों से परीक्षा पास की लेकिन लगातार परेशान हो रहे हैं। इसी तरह आवेदक ज्योति तिवारी ने कहा कि संविदा शिक्षक भर्ती के नाम पर आवेदकों को परेशान किया जा रहा है। सभी आवेदकों ने परीक्षा में जो रुपए भरे थे वह वापस दिए जाना चाहिए।

आवेदकों को समझाया लेकिन नहीं माने
पहले चरण में अप्रैल में डॉक्यूमेंट वेरिफिकेशन हुआ था। अब दूसरा चरण उन लोगों के लिए है जिन्होंने डीएड-बीएड का फॉर्म भरा था, लेकिन रिजल्ट नहीं आया था। अब रिजल्ट आ चुके हैं इसलिए मंगलवार से डॉक्यूमेंट वेरिफिकेशन शुरू हुआ। सिर्फ उन्हीं के वेरिफिकेशन हो रहे हैं जो भर्ती परीक्षा पास हैं और डीएड या बीएड किया है। हालांकि ज्यादातर वे लोग वेरिफिकेशन के लिए आए जिन्होंने परीक्षा पास की थी लेकिन डीएड या बीएड नहीं हैं। उन्हें समझाया लेकिन वे नहीं माने।
-संजय गोयल, जिला शिक्षाधिकारी, इन्दौर

डीएड या बीएड हैं तो ही वेरिफिकेशन
-संविदा शिक्षक वर्ग-1 : बीएड अनिवार्य
-संविदा शिक्षक वर्ग-2 : बीएड या डीएड
-संविदा शिक्षक वर्ग-3 : डीएड अनिवार्य

News Sabhaar : Facebook

Read more...

UP Recruitment News, Allahabad Highcourt : पुराने चयन पर नया शासनादेश लागू नहीं : हाईकोर्ट


UP Recruitment News, Allahabad Highcourt : पुराने चयन पर नया शासनादेश लागू नहीं : हाईकोर्ट

 इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने आंगनबाड़ी कार्यक‌िर्त्रयों की नियुक्ति संबंधी चार नवंबर 12 को जारी शासनादेश को स्पष्ट करते हुए कहा है कि शासनादेश जारी होने से पहले पूरी हो चुकी चयन प्रक्रिया पर इसका प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा। इस शासनादेश से आंगनबाड़ी कार्यक‌िर्त्रयों की नियुक्ति की नई प्रक्रिया निर्धारित की गई है। कहा गया है कि इससे पहले से जारी चयन प्रक्रिया समाप्त मानी जाएगी और नई प्रक्रिया के तहत ही चयन किया जाएगा

कोर्ट ने कहा है कि शासनादेश की मंशा पहले से चल रही नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया को समाप्त करने की है न कि पूरी हो चुकी चयन को समाप्त करने की। चयन प्रक्रिया पूरी हो चुकी हो और नियुक्ति पत्र जारी होने से पहले शासनादेश आने पर पूर्व का चयन समाप्त नहीं होगा।

यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति सुधीर अग्रवाल ने कानपुर नगर के घाटमपुर ब्लाक की ज्ञानवती की याचिका पर दिया है। याची का आंगनबाड़ी कार्यक‌िर्त्रयों के रूप में चयन हुआ। नियुक्ति पत्र जारी करने के लिए जिलाधिकारी से अनुमति मांगी गई। आय प्रमाणपत्र की सत्यता पर शिकायत हुई। जांच के दौरान ही चार नवंबर 12 का शासनादेश आ गया नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया बदल दी गई। सरकार का कहना था कि शासनादेश से विचाराधीन चयन प्रक्रिया निरस्त कर दी गई। याची का कहना था कि उसका चयन हो चुका है। ऐसे में शासनादेश उस पर नहीं लागू होगा। कोर्ट ने कहा कि नियुक्ति की अनुमति देने की प्रक्रिया के दौरान शिकायत की जांच के कारण यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि चयन प्रक्रिया विचाराधीन है। कोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार को याची की नियुक्ति करने का आदेश देते हुए याचिका स्वीकार कर ली है और कहा है कि अधिकारियों ने शासनादेश को समझने में गलती की है



News Sabhaar : Jagran (18.9.13)
Read more...

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

72825 Teacher Recruitment Case now Unlisted in Allahabad High Court

72825 Teacher Recruitment Case now Unlisted in Allahabad High Court








HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 35
Civil Misc. Listing Application No. 269185 of 2013:
In:
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.

Hon'ble Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
List with previous papers on Thursday i.e. on 19th September, 2013 as "Unlisted".
Order Date :- 16.9.2013
Arun K. Singh



Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2798048




Read more...