/* remove this */

Saturday, August 2, 2014

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -X

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -X



Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl


PART -X
Indisputably in these appeals, the competence of the NCTE either to issue the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to conduct the TET or to vest a discretion amongst others to the State Government to grant relaxation as contemplated in clause 9(a) in accordance with its extant reservation policy has not been questioned. Patently as well the guidelines circulated vide letter dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE deal exclusively with  the modalities pertaining to TET. In our estimate also, the legislative empowerment of the NCTE to lay down the minimum qualifications for appointment as a Teacher, as is evident from Section 23 of the Act, 2009, does not obdurately limit it to prescribe only the academic qualifications but also permit prescription of essential norms of eligibility to effectuate the underlying objectives of the enactment.
While irrefutably, concessions as contemplated to the reserved category candidates, have to be essentially in conformity with the extant reservation policy, the TET scores, due to the weightage to be accorded to it, would unmistakably contribute to the eventual performance of a candidate qua his/her recruitment.  A candidate who thus, pass the TET would be eligible to participate in a process
of recruitment to the post of a teacher in both the levels, provided he/she is possessed of the academic
qualifications prescribed therefor and would further be entitled to weightage of the marks scored by him/her in the TET examination, if he/she passes the same.
Axiomatically thus, for a candidate who pass the TET in terms of the modalities prescribed and is otherwise academically qualified to partake in the process of recruitment of a teacher as contemplated, he/she would have the benefit of weightage of his/her marks in the said examination to adjudge finally, his/her performance for selection. Viewed thus, vis-a-vis the candidates who pass the TET, the marks secured by them in this examination would form an integral segment of their final scores on the basis whereof, the merit list for recruitment would be drawn up. A pass in the TET consequently, though at theinitiation of the process of recruitment would be a criterion of eligibility, the marks secured therein would eventually get integrated in the performance of a candidate for his/her eventual assessment of comparative merit for selection for recruitment. A pass in the TET, in
this composite scheme of evaluation of a candidate thus, in the ultimate analysis, transforms itself from a norm of eligibility to a contributory ingredient of overall performance of a candidate deciding his/her prospect of selection for eventual recruitment. The factum of being successful in the TET, as comprehended in clause 9, therefore, has an undeniable impact, in our comprehension, on the process of recruitment.
Be that as it may, the  State Government in the School Education Department,  acting on the guidelines, vide its letter No.PS/PSE/2010/91 dated 23.3.2011 addressed to the Secretary, & Coordinator, Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility test, Rajasthan Board for Secondary Education, Ajmer, decided to grant the following concessions to the persons  belonging to the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, differently able to persons etc., as contemplated in
paragraph 9 of the guidelines of the NCTE circulated vide its letter dated 11.2.2011:

“(a) 10% concession may be given to all the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, and all women belonging to the General Category.
(b) 15% concession may be given to all the women belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, and all widowed and divorced women.
(c) 20% concession may be given to all the persons covered under the definition of “person
with disability” under clause (t) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.”
Certain clarifications regarding persons pursuing any of the teacher education courses were also provided.
A bare perusal of this letter dated 23.3.2011 however, does not disclose any reference to the extant
reservation policy of the government, as mentioned in clause 9 of the letter dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE.
Subsequent thereto, on 30.3.2011, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer issued an advertisement for the RTET-2011 to be held on 22.5.2011. The last date for submission of the application form was mentioned to be 18.4.2011. The norm of eligibility i.e. minimum academic
qualifications for appearing in the said test were the same, as enumerated in the notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE. While 60% or more marks was prescribed for a pass in the said test for the general category candidates, concessions to the   extent   as   set   out   in   the letter dated 23.3.2011, were accorded to the three classes of reserved category candidates mentioned therein. There is no dissensus at the Bar that the parties
in the fray did eventually take the TET and results thereof were declared on 28.8.2011. In between, Notification No.F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/(N&S) dated 29.7.2011 was issued by the NCTE in exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Act 2009 introducing the amendment of its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher.  This notification though occasioned alterations  in the minimum academic
qualifications, it retained the requirement of a pass in the TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with its guidelines. However, thereby paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 was substituted as hereunder:-
“(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 the 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  recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.
(ii) Reservation Policy:
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the  candidates belonging to
reserved categories; such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.”
In Item No.(ii) of this paragraph, under the caption “Reservation Policy”,   it   was   provided   that   relaxation   upto 5% in the qualifying marks would be allowed to the candidates belonging to  the reserved categories i.e.SC/ST/OBC/PH.
Whereas, the respondent-State insists that this relaxation is qua the minimum marks in the qualifying
examination of senior secondary/graduation etc
., the respondents/writ petitioners maintain it to be relatable to the pass marks in the TET. According to them, the results of the TET prepared and declared in terms of the letter dated 23.3.2011, were thus non est, to the extent of concession being granted to the reserved category candidates, above 5% in the marks secured in the TET,
the same being apparently repugnant to the prescription to this effect contained  in the notification dated 29.7.2011. They thus, contend that the  reserved category candidates who secured less than 55% marks in the TET could not have been declared to have passed the said examination, so as to enable them to participate further in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of teacher in Levels I and II.
The original paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 needs to be recalled  to appropriately analyze this otherwise irreconciliable orientations. For ready reference it is quoted hereunder:-
“3. Training to be undergone.- A person -
(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification  shall also be eligible for
appointment for class I  to V upto Ist 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.”

A cursory perusal of the contents of this quote would demonstrate that paragraph 3  of the notification dated 23.8.2010 dealt exclusively with the aspect of NCTE recognized 6-months Special Programme in Elementary Education by way of training of the persons with qualifications mentioned therein, after appointment. There was neither any comprehension nor any provision for reservation or relaxation of marks. Academic qualifications with minimum percentage of marks was
however, referred to.
In the amended paragraph 3, introduced by the notification dated 29.7.2011, apart from modified
academic qualifications with percentage of marks, relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks was provided for the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH. The texts of the two paragraphs of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 when juxtaposed, in our estimate,  connote that the concession of 5% in the qualifying marks pertains to the percentage
of marks in the qualifying examination of Senior Secondary/Graduation etc
. and not to the percentage of pass marks in TET. The schemes of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 do not permit the interpretation, as asserted on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners. Both these notifications, in clear terms, deal with the minimum qualifications of a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher of
which a pass in the TET, as clarified by the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, was a norm of eligibility.
This view is fortified by the letter No. F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE/N&S dated 1.4.2011 of the NCTE addressed, amongst others, to all Secretaries and Commissioners of the   State   Governments/UTs   clarifying that following the issuance of the notification dated 23.8.2010, it had received representations from   the   State   Government   and other stakeholders that in respect of SCs/STs etc.
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks should be allowed, since such relaxation is permissible by the NCTE for admission in various  teacher education courses
.
Referring to the minimum marks in the notification dated 23.8.2010, in senior secondary (or its equivalent) or in B.A./B.Sc., it was elucidated that following its meeting held on 16.3.2011 it was decided that relaxation upto 5% in such qualifying marks would be available to SCs/STs etc., in accordance with the extant policy of the State Government /UTs and other school managements. There is no reference of such relaxation to pass marks in the TET. This accommodation of the NCTE, by way ofconcession of 5% marks qua the academic qualifications, is also evident from the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as '2009 Regulations') and the norms  and standards for various education courses as specified in the Appendices thereto and referred to in the course of arguments on its behalf.
The explanation of the NCTE with regard to the nature of the relaxation granted under the caption “reservation policy” traceable to paragraph 3 of the principal notification dated 23.8.2010 with reference amongst others to the 2009 Regulations cannot be ignored or discarded. The pleadings to this effect and the arguments advanced project its consistent stand on this facet of the debate. Relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks in the amended paragraph 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, in our comprehension, is thus wholly unrelated to the percentage of pass marks in the TET. The sanction of relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks, in our
comprehension, thus has no nexus with the pass marks in the TET. Any endeavour to relate it to the percentage of marks in the TET, would be doing violence to the tone, tenor and contents of the notifications, which is clearly impermissible. The notification dated 29.7.2011 having regard to the scheme and purport thereof has to be essentially co-related with the one dated 23.8.2010,
which originally did not contemplate any relaxation.
Logically, thus, this notification does not supersede the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 governing the conduct of the TET. The respondents'/writ petitioners' plea of disqualification of reserved category candidates securing less than 55% marks in the TET thus, cannot be sustained.
Meanwhile, one Durga Das and seven others inter alia in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10785/2011 invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to annul clause 9 (a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE and clause 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011 dealing with the relaxation in the minimum pass marks accorded to the reserved category candidates in the RTET-2011. A Single Bench of this Court by order dated 9.9.2011  while noticing that the results of the said examination had been declared on 28.8.2011, in the interim, restrained the
Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer from issuing any eligibility certificate on the basis thereof to the candidates who had  been declared to have passed by availing the aforementioned concessions.
 The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India moved by the department having
been rejected on 8.12.2011 the State of Rajasthan preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011, and by order dated 6.1.2012, a Coordinate  Bench of this Court held that as the challenge involved impugnment of statutory guidelines, the learned Single Judge lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the same. The interim restraint was thus, vacated and the matter was ordered to be listed before a Division Bench.  Subsequent thereto however, this petition was dismissed as infructuous on 28.9.2012.
There was thus, no adjudication on merit of the assailment of the validity of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 and clause 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011 for the RTET-2011 designed on the relaxation granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011. The attention of this Court has not been drawn to any other pending assailment either of clause 9
of the guidelines or the relaxation granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 or paragraph 4(a) of the advertisement dated 30.3.2011. This notification dated 29.7.2011, therefore, as the relaxation referred to therein does not relate to the percentage of marks to be secured in the TET to pass the same, cannot be construed to be in supersession either of the guidelines
dated 11.2.2011 or the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the
State Government
.


Read more...

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -Y

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -Y

**************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM

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


Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl


 PART -Y

Rajasthan Highcourt,
While the matter rested  at that, advertisement(s) were issued for filling up vacant posts of teachers in Level I   (Class   I   to   V)   and   Level   II  (Class VI to VIII) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as '1994 Act') and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996  Rules'). One of such advertisement dated 24.2.2012 issued by the office of Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh is on record.
Meanwhile, by a notification dated 11.5.2011 issued by the State Government in the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,  had notified the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 framed in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the 1994 Act
amending Rule 266 of the 1996 Rules was notified.
Thereby it was clarified that the academic qualifications for the post of primary and upper primary school teachers to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment would be as stipulated by the NCTE under Act 2009. By way of amendment in Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules, it was provided further that the   District   Establishment Committee, as contemplated therein, would prepare the merit list of the candidates by adding 20% of the marks secured by them in the TET  to those obtained in the written test to be conducted for the recruitment. This prescription apparently is traceable to the cognate concept engrafted in clause 9(b) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 eluded hereinabove.
Be that as it may, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 were in force at the time of issuance of the advertisement(s) for direct recruitment to the post of teachers in the aforementioned two levels under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules (as amended).
Though this advertisement mentioned that the exercise would be subject to the decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2664/2011 in the face of the disposal thereof as infructuous on 28.9.2012, this recital, as on date, is of no consequence.
The advertisement enumerated the minimum academic and professional qualifications for both the
levels of posts in conformity with those prescribed by the notification dated 29.7.2011 of the NCTE. Clause 7(3) mentioned that the reserved category candidates, as adverted to therein, would be accorded concession of 5% in the qualifying marks. In the eligibility norms contained in clauses 7(1) and 7(2), noticeably whereas, clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) dealt  with the minimum academic
qualifications, clause 7(1)(kha) and 7(2)(kha) pertained to the criteria of passing the TET. Though the
respondents/writ petitioners taking this clue, have insisted that the concession of 5% to the qualifying marks thus, extends to the percentage of pass marks in TET, so much so that  reserved category candidates securing less than 55% marks therein should be construed to be unsuccessful in the said examination, and thus, disqualified to participate in the exercise initiated by the advertisement, we are unable, in view of the true purport of the notification dated 29.7.2011 detailed herein above, to lend our concurrence  to this plea. In our comprehension, the notification dated 29.7.2011 accorded a concession of 5% only to the  minimum percentage of marks in the prescribed qualifying examination i.e. Senior Secondary, Graduation etc..  This relaxation was neither
intended by it nor was permissible to be correlated with the percentage of pass marks in the TET. As a matter of fact, the State respondents in the process initiated by the advertisement, granted concession of 5% to the reserved category candidates only vis-a-vis their academic qualifications as set out in clause 7(1) (ka) and 7(2)(ka) thereof. To this extent, this initiative is not transgressive
of the notification dated 29.7.2011.

Clause 15 of the advertisement however, proclaimed in unambiguous terms that 20% of the marks obtained by a candidate in the TET would be added to those secured in the test to follow, to determine the final merit list. The performance of the successful candidate in the TET thus,
apparently was contemplated to have  due weightage in the eventual assessment of their merit and suitability for appointment to the posts involved. This modality of selection  did accord as well with Rule 273 of the 1996 Rules as amended by Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011. It is in this overall perspective that the respondents/writ petitioners successfully pleaded
vitiation of the recruitment process due to  excessive and prohibited relaxations in favour of the reserved category candidates in defeasance of the solemn constitutional objective for installing a national benchmark in the standard of teaching. They contended that by such unregulated concessions, impermissible advantages have been heaped on the reserved category candidates, thus,
irreversibly compromising with the aspired quality of teaching rendering the whole exercise to be a farce. The State respondents contend to the contrary and assert that as the eventual merit has been ascertained on the basis of composite performance of the candidates in the TET and the recruitment test, the imputation of compromise with merit is wholly fallacious.
Significantly on the date of publication of the guidelines of the NCTE vide its letter dated 11.2.2011
contemplating weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process, no concession in the qualifying marks in the academic  qualifications was in contemplation, as would be evident from the notification dated 23.8.2010.


This materialized only vide notification dated 29.7.2011 and was limited to the reserved category candidates as mentioned therein. Coupled with the relaxation  granted vide the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the State Government, these candidates thus, on the completion of the recruitment process as a whole, had availed concessions in the   marks   in   the   qualifying examinations as well as in the marks scored by them in the TET. The reserved category candidates who thus, did qualify in the TET examination on the basis of the concessions awarded by the  State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011, availed second relaxation also qua their academic qualifications vide NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011 to participate in the recruitment process for eventual selection for the post involved. These candidates, therefore, indisputably stood doubly advantaged on these counts vis-a-vis their general category counterparts. There is no demur that in view of the weightage of marks obtained in the TET, many candidates though had performed better in the recruitment test, had lagged behind in the overall tally, resulting either in their ouster from the merit list or their relegation down below in  the order. Considering the cumulative bearing of all  these inseverable aspects pertaining to the process of recruitment, the inescapable conclusion is that a pass in the TET though construed to be a norm of eligibility for participating in the recruitment test for selection, the weightage of the marks secured therein for the determination of the decisive merit for recruitment, makes it an inextricable constituent of the whole exercise and cannot be divorced therefrom. The impact of the relaxation granted to the reserved category candidates in the matter of pass marks in the TET thus assuredly, has a bearing on the ultimate asssesment of
merit. Concession to these candidates in the qualifying marks in the relevant academic examinations to render them eligible to participate in the recruitment test, is undeniably an added advantage to them. This tranche of concession however, being in accordance with the NCTE Regulations 2009, having regard to its legislatively assigned role under Section 23(1) of Act 2009, though
cannot per se be faulted with, the concession in pass marks of the TET can, by no means, be beyond the extant policy of the State Government for reservation to the categories of the candidates intended to be benefited thereby. As the marks secured in the TET, to reiterate, have a bearing on the ultimate assessment of merit of the candidates, the extent of  relaxation and/or concession granted to the reserved category candidates on this count, is thus of utmost significance. Not only the letter
dated 23.3.2011 referred to herein above whereby the State Government had accorded concession to the extent of 10 to 20% to the different categories of candidates in the pass marks in TET does either refer to the extant policy of reservation or disclose any basis therefor, no explanation in this regard is also forthcoming  in the pleadings of the State respondents.
It cannot be gain said in the face of the unequivocal ordainment contained in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 that the authorities/local bodies including the Government while left at liberty to grant concessions to the persons belonging to the categories mentioned therein, were required to adhere to their extant reservation policy. The  State Government was thus
inflexibly bound by its extant reservation policy, if desirous of sanctioning any relaxation, as permitted. The word “extant” as defined amongst others in the Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary means “still existing and known; leaving”. The State Government was thus obliged, if at all willing to grant concessions as comprehended in clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, to accord
the same strictly in accordance therewith. Any departure from its extant reservation policy per se is impermissible as the State Government was not vested with any authority to do so. To reiterate, no endeavour has at all been made to demonstrate that the concessions granted by the letter dated 23.3.2011 were in conformity with its extant reservation policy in force at the relevant point of
time. Grant of such concession by formulating a new policy being not allowable in terms of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, such benefit, if accorded on the basis of the concessions as contained in the letter dated 23.3.2011, would have a vitiating effect.
Though such relaxation granted by the various State Governments have been cited  before us to justify the concessions granted by the State of Rajasthan, except for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no such wide range of concessions as pro vided by the letter dated 23.3.2011,59 has been accorded. It is unclear as well, as to whether the extent of concession granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is in conformity with its extant policy of reservation. If it is so, the incentives so granted would be
in harmony with the letter and spirit of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011.
If not, the concession granted by the said State Government per se would not render the predication of clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 limiting  the relaxation to the candidates of the extant policy ipso facto redundant or violable. 
In the face of the all pervading prescript for accomplished teaching as the constitutional imperative embodied in the Act 2009, no concession or relaxation incompatible therewith can receive judicial imprimatur.
Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 only makes it   optional   for   the   State   to   grant   relaxation   and/or concession in the pass marks in TET so as to render  a candidate qualified to participate in the recruitment test.
The discretion so granted cannot be applied to emasculate the  underlying purpose of the Act 2009. Any concession beyond the permissible limits, as outlined by the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, would evidently have the potential of compromising with the standard of education, so zealously sought to be  secured by the constitutionalmandate in Article 21A yield whereof is Act 2009. If the State Government is, in terms of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, left at liberty to grant the relaxation, however, strictly in accordance with its extant  reservation policy,  the relaxation and/or concession granted for its validity, would have essentially to withstand the scrutiny on the basis thereof. 
In the wake of the above, on a conjoint consideration of the materials on record as a whole, we are thus, constrained to hold that the concession granted by the State Government vide its letter dated 23.3.2011 to the reserved category candidates, as mentioned therein, is not in conformity with clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of the NCTE. Consequentially, the participation of the reserved category candidates declared to have passed the TET on the basis of such relaxation as a whole in the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements issued under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules and culminating in the selection of the candidates, cannot be held to be valid. As a corollary, the results of the RTET- 2011 are interfered with to the extent of participation of the reserved category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by the State Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. Though conscious of the fact that the process pertaining to the RTET-2011, as such is not directly under challenge before us, having regard to the entire gamut of facts attendant on the recruitment
process as a whole of which it (RTET-2011) is an inseverable segment, this determination, in our opinion, is inevitable. The results of RTET- 2011 as a consequence, have to be redrawn. Axiomatically, the participation of the reserved category candidates who would now have to be declared unsuccessful, in the recruitment test initiated by the advertisements under the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules, would have to be declared illegal. Resultantly the eventual results of the selection process would also have to be necessarily prepared afresh.




Read more...

RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART - Z


RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART - Z

*****************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM

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

आजकल फेसबुक पर लोगो को चर्चा करते हुए की टेट मार्क्स 60 से कम वालों को अनआरक्षित वर्ग में रखना सही है कि नहीं ,
जिज्ञासा स्वरुप समाचार देखे ,
एक राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट की सिंगल बेंच की न्यूज़ देखी जिसमें 60 से कम लेकिन 55 से अधिक वालों को सिर्फ आरक्षित वर्ग में रखने की बात कही गयी थी ।

यह मामला चीफ जस्टिस की बेंच तक गया और उसने सिंगल बेंच को सही न मानते हुए सिर्फ उन लोगो को पास माना जिनके टेट मार्क्स 60 से ऊपर थे
70 पेजों का निर्णय है

********

आरटेट 2011: हाईकोर्ट ने कहा 60% से कम वाले शिक्षक बनने योग्य नहीं

जयपुर। हाईकोर्ट की खंडपीठ ने आरटेट 2011 के परिणाम को रद्द करते हुए दुबारा परिणाम जारी करने तथा इस आधार पर हुई तृतीय श्रेणी शिक्षक भर्ती की चयन सूची दुबारा बनाने का निर्देश दिया है। हाईकोर्ट ने आरटेट 2011 में आरक्षित वर्ग को न्यूनतम प्राप्तांकों में छूट देने तथा साठ प्रतिशत से कम अंक वालों को शिक्षक भर्ती के योग्य मानने को गलत ठहराते हुए यह आदेश दिए।

अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि आरक्षित वर्ग के ऐसे अभ्यर्थी जो फीस के अलावा अन्य कोई छूट लेकर सामान्य वर्ग में चयनित हुए हैं, उन्हें चयन से बाहर किया जाए। मुख्य न्यायाधीश अमिताभ रॉय व न्यायाधीश निशा गुप्ता की खंडपीठ ने यह आदेश देते हुए राज्य सरकार व 28 अन्य की अपीलों को खारिज कर दिया।



अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा विभिन्न श्रेणियों में दी गई दस से बीस प्रतिशत अंकों की छूट गलत है, जबकि एनसीटीई के नियमानुसार आरटेट में उत्तीर्ण होने के लिए न्यूनतम 60' अंक लाना जरूरी था। राज्य सरकार ने अपने जवाब में स्पष्ट किया कि आरक्षित वर्ग को जिस पांच प्रतिशत छूट की बात कही है वह टेट में शामिल होने के लिए शैक्षणिक योग्यता में छूट थी न कि टेट के न्यूनतम प्राप्तांक में। ऐसे में स्पष्ट है कि आरटेट में न्यूनतम प्राप्तांकों में छूट का कोई प्रावधान नहीं था

News Sabhaar : http://www.bhaskar.com/article/RAJ-JAI-rtet-2011-the-high-court-jaipur-rajasthan-news-4309130-PHO.html / Bhaskar (03.07.2013)


RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM - PART - Z


The aspect of migration of reserved category candidates availing fully or partially the benefits of
concession on account of fee, age and other norms to the quota otherwise allotted for the general category candidates next needs to be addressed.  According to the respondents/writ petitioners, in view of the cumulative effect of concessions granted in the qualifying marks in the prescribed academic examinations and weightage of marks secured in the TET by them after availing the
relaxation in the percentage of pass marks therein, the allotments of the general category candidates have been usurped by their reserved category counterparts. Though this has not been denied by the State respondents, they justified the same on the yardstick of superior merit assessed in the process of recruitment comprised of two segments i.e.TET and recruitment test.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to circular No.F-7(2) DOP/A-II/96 dated 17.6.1996 of the
Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (AGr.II). The relevant excerpt thereof hereinbelow:-
  “    CIRCULAR – ORDER
Sub : Reservation for   Scheduled   Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes in posts/services under the Government.
According to the existing rule and circulars issued by the Government from time to time,
reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have been
made to the extent of 16%, 12% and 21% respectively in the matter of direct recruitment.
The   matter   under   consideration of this department is as to whether:-
(1) the candidates belonging Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who get selected on general merit shall be counted against the reserve vacancies or general vacancies;
and
(2) Whether those who get in the merit list as a result of special concession given to them in terms of age and attempts should be considered against general vacancies or reserve vacancies.

. . .      . . .   . . .    . . .  . . .
The matter has against been examined in consultation with Law Deptt. and the Law Deptt.
have advised that the quota of post for which every citizen is eligible to compete in entirely
different to reserve quota and for recruitment to the post falling in open competition quota,  the
condition of eligibility can be different to the conditions of eligibility for recruitment to the
post of reserve quota. Therefore, the candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC who get selected
fulfilling the conditions of eligibility regarding age limit and attempts prescribed for general
candidates can be placed on general merit list and those who get placement in the merit list as
a result of special concession given to them in terms of age and attempts should not be
considered as the general candidates but should be considered against reserve vacancies
.”
By a later circular No.F.7(1) DOP/A-2/99 dated 4.3.2002 issued on the same issue by the same
department, it was provided that the candidates belonging to the aforementioned reserved categories, if do not avail concession except on fee and  secure marks above the last general category candidate, he/she would be accommodated against the vacancies for general category and not for the reserved categories.
Vide circular No.F.15(24) DOP/AII/75 dated 24.6.2008 again of the same department, it was clarified
in this regard as hereunder:-
“6.2 In the state, members of the SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that of age, etc)
available to them other than that relating to payment of examination fee in case of direct
recruitment. On the other hand, women, persons with disabilities, sportspersons, inservicemen or non-gazetted employees and exservicemen are counted against their respective category, even if they are suitable for selection against non-reserved or open competition vacancy/post. But it may be noted that if any remaining candidate of these categories after providing the vacancies/posts reserved for them are more meritorious than the last person of the open competition category, such candidate will
be selected even if it leads to selection of more candidates than that provided by virtue of
reservation.”
The   more   or   less   consistent   notion   on   the   issue   of migration of reserved category candidates to general quota that emerges from these circulars is that it is permissible, if such candidates compete without availing any special concession in terms of age, attempts and otherwise except on fee. Admittedly, this had been the accepted dictum on the issue, on 30.3.2011 on which
advertisement was published for the RTET- 2011.
 However, vide  circular No.F.7(1) DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011, it was provided,   in   supersession   of   the aforementioned circular dated 4.3.2002, as follows:-
“(a) If a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST irrespective of whether he has availed of or not
any of the special concessions which are available to the candidate belonging to these categories and he secures more marks than the marks obtained by the last Unreserved category candidates who is selected, such a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST shall be counted against the unreserved category vacancies and not   the   vacancies  reserved for the BC/SBC/SC/ST, as the case may be.”

This circular evidently had been applied by the State respondents for effecting migration of reserved category candidates availing the benefits of concessions, narrated hereinabove, to enable them to migrate to the unreserved category vacancies.
Incidentally, the circular dated 11.5.2011 was not in existence on 11.2.2011 whereunder in terms of clause 9(b) thereof, weightage of marks in the TET in the recruitment process was mandated. Performance in the TET to follow, was thus, envisaged to be a constituent in the overall process of evaluation of merit of a candidate belonging to the reserved category or otherwise. Patently, therefore, as on that date i.e.11.2.2011 and hence the circular dated 24.6.2008 on the issue of migration of reserved category candidates into general quota, the vacancies, was in force.  This circular, to reiterate, did not permit such migration except in the eventuality of relaxation in the matter of payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment. Such migration was however, prohibited in case other concessions had been availed.
As by guidelines dated 11.2.2011, the TET, for all practical purposes, was made an integral part of the
recruitment process, the norms on the issue of migration as stipulated by the circular dated 24.6.2008 could not have been altered by one  dated 11.5.2011 for their application to the exercise already underway.  The permissibility of migration  facilitated thereby, for all practical purposes, introduced a selection criteria subsequent to the initiation of the process vide the advertisement dated 30.3.2011, which was impermissible as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court times out of number and amongst others in K.Manjusree (supra).
In Jitendra Kumar Singh and anr. (supra),   the Hon'ble Apex Court while dwelling on the true purport of reservation in favour of social and educationally backward classes as contemplated, in particular, in Article 16 of the Constitution of India rejected the plea that relaxation in
fee or age ought to deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of opportunity to compete against general category candidates. It was held that concession in fee and age relaxation only enables certain candidates belonging to the reserved category who fall within the
zone of consideration and that such concession do not, in any  manner, tilt balance  in favour of the reserved category candidates in the preparation of final merit/select list.
Their Lordships observed that concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates are to enable them to compete with the general category candidates  and it is only thereafter that the merit of the candidates is to be determined without  any further concession in favour of the reserved category candidates. This view was reiterated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mangla
Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011(1)WLC (Raj.) 148. This view has since been endorsed also by a Single Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.4.2012 rendered in batch of writ petitions, the leading case being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15152/2011 Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In Dr.Preeti Srivatava (supra),   the   Hon'ble   Apex Court did sound a caveat that norms for admission do have a direct impact on the standards of education. Qua reservation in the higher echelons of education, it was emphasized that dilution in qualifying marks between the reserved category candidates ought to be limited to a reasonable extent, bearing in mind the supervening public interest, so much so that the concept of merit is not wiped out in its entirety. That while considering the segments of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment, maintenance of efficiency of administration has been stressed upon by Article 335, was underlined as well.
 The same concern reverberated in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra). While dilating on the scope and content  of Articles 15, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India, it was observed that vacancies are not to be filled up by way of charity as the constitutional scheme is to have candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the  functions attached to the
post. Emphasis on merit was highlighted as well.
While acknowledging inability of  the disadvantaged groups or the socially backward people to compete with those in the general category, it was observed that the same did not denote that they (disadvantaged groups) would not be required to meet the basic minimum criteria laid down therefor. It was underscored  as well that relaxation of marks for candidates belonging to reserved category candidates was not a constitutional mandate at the threshold and was permissible only for the purpose of promotion.
In all thus, in the attendant   facts,   the   circular   dated 11.5.2011 was inapplicable to the recruitment process.
Even otherwise, the reserved category candidates having availed a variety of relaxations and concessions, their migration to the general quota vacancies was invalid in view of the pronouncement in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra).
In the wake of the determinations made hereinabove, the appeals fail and are dismissed. To
reiterate, the results of the RTET 2011 are set aside to the extent of participation of the reserved category candidates benefited by the relaxation granted by the State Government in excess of its extant reservation policy. The results of RTET 2011 has, therefore, to be re-cast. The participation of the reserved category candidates in the final recruitment test, who would thus have to be declared
unsuccessful in the RTET 2011, has also to be declared illegal.
Consequently, the eventual final results in the selection process have to be prepared afresh and declared accordingly. In undertaking this exercise to prepare the final results, the decision recorded herein on the aspect of migration of reserved category candidates into the quota of general category candidates would also be complied
with.

(Nisha Gupta)J.                             (Amitava Roy)CJ.
Parmar/skant
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated
in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA





Read more...

72825 Shikshakon Ki Online Counslling

UPTET 72825 Shikshakon Ki Online Counslling


Candidate apna pradeshvaar data dekh sakenge, aur jitne jilon mein apply kiya hai ve saare uskon online dikhenge.

Ek TET roll number ka saaraa data show hone lagegaa.

नेशनल इंफारमेटिक सेंटर (एनआईसी) से तैयार किए गए साफ्टवेयर का इस्तेमाल किया जाएगा ताकि एक जिले में गल्तियां सही होने के साथ ही सभी स्थानों पर हो जाए





News Sabhaar : Hndustan Paper (2.8.14)
*****************************
72,825 शिक्षक भर्ती: अगस्त के अंत तक होगी काउंसलिंग

72825 teachers recruitment by august end
सूबे के प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में 72,825 सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए काउंसलिंग इस महीने के अंत तक होगी। इसके लिए मेरिट लिस्ट 15 अगस्त के बाद जारी की जाएगी।

इस मसले पर सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा एचएल गुप्ता ने शिक्षा विभाग के अधिकारियों के साथ समीक्षा की। उन्होंने एनआईसी के अधिकारियों से भी इस बारे में बात की।

प्रदेश सरकार ने सहायक शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए जब डाटा कंपाइल कराया तो इसमें कई गड़बड़ियां निकल आईं। इस पर आवेदकों से आपत्तियां मांगी गई थीं।

मेरिट पर अधिकारियों ने की चर्चा

सचिव ने शुक्रवार को बैठक में एनआईसी के अधिकारियों से कहा कि जितने भी प्रत्यावेदन आए हैं, उनका निस्तारण कर शीघ्र मेरिट तैयार की जाए।

जिलावार मेरिट 15 अगस्त के बाद जारी कर दी जाएगी। बैठक में राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद के अधिकारियों को भी बुलाया गया था

इसमें यह भी चर्चा हुई कि सहायक अध्यापकों की मेरिट किस प्रकार बनाई जाए ताकि इसमें कोई गड़बड़ी न रह पाए


गल्तियां सुधारने की तारीख तय

प्राइमरी स्कूलों में 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए जिलेवार आए प्रत्यावेदनों के आधार पर 12 अगस्त तक गल्तियां सुधारी जाएंगी


राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) के निदेशक सर्वेंद्र विक्रम सिंह ने इस संबंध में जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान (डायट) के प्राचार्यों को निर्देश दे दिया है।

उनसे कहा गया है कि गल्तियां ठीक करने के लिए नेशनल इंफारमेटिक सेंटर (एनआईसी) से तैयार किए गए साफ्टवेयर का इस्तेमाल किया जाएगा ताकि एक जिले में गल्तियां सही होने के साथ ही सभी स्थानों पर हो जाए


दो बार मांगे गए थे प्रत्यावेदन

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्देश पर राज्य सरकार ने प्राइमरी स्कूलों में टीईटी मेरिट के आधार पर 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती प्रक्रिया शुरू की है।

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने जिलेवार आए आवेदनों में गलती सुधारने के लिए अभ्यर्थियों से दो चरणों में पहले 7 जुलाई फिर 21 जुलाई तक प्रत्यावेदन मांगे थे।

विभागीय जानकारों की मानें तो 70 लाख से भी अधिक प्रत्यावेदन जिलों को प्राप्त हुए हैं। इतनी बड़ी संख्या में आए प्रत्यावेदनों के आधार पर डायट प्राचार्यों को मूल प्रत्यावेदन ठीक करने हैं।


 News Source Sabhaar : अमर उजाला, लखनऊ (2.8.14)
 *********************




  
Read more...