/* remove this */

Friday, August 31, 2012

UPTET : Relaxation for B Ed candidates to Recruit as PRT upto 2014 ( Granted by Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibbal )



























Source : Hindstan Epaper - Delhi ( Pagen no. 8, Date - 30.08.2012)
*****************************

However I felt, UPTET candidates already applied within NCTE date limit (1st Jan 2012 ) and stay was imposed by Highcourt. Therefore such date limit is not a big problem for B. Ed (TET Level - I Qualifide) candidates to be appoint as Primary Teacher as process started in time bound manner.
Read more...

Mother of 2 teenagers tops state teachers eligibilty test

Mother of 2 teenagers tops state teachers eligibilty test
TNTET News :
Nagapattinam, Aug 25 (PTI) A 39-year old mother of two teenagers from Vedaranyam in the district has come out on top in the state in the Teachers Eligibility Test. P Chitra of Ayakkarankulam village near Vedaranyam secured 142 out of 150 marks in B.Ed category. She specialised in Science and Mathematics. She completed B.Sc in 1993 and after a 15 year gap joined B.Ed in 2008. Thereafter, she kept preparing for various competitive examinations, she told reporters. Her husband is a teacher at Kariyapattinam Government Higher Secondary School. Their elder daughter is pursing her B.E second year and the younger one is in 11th standard. "The hard work I had put in has paid off in a very big way," she said and attributed her success to the cooperation and encouragement of her husband and daughters. A total of 3.88 lakh candidates had taken the test on July 12, the results of which were declared today.
 PTI
Read more...

Allahabad Highcourt Judgement regarding Teachers / Faculty for Training in DIETs of UP

 Allahabad Highcourt Judgement  regarding Teachers / Faculty for Training in DIETs of UP






HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 53

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14427 of 2010

Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Chandan Sharma,Abhishek Rai,U.N. Sharma
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Affidavit filed by the Director, State Council of Education, Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow dated 16th April, 2010 presents a very sorry State of affairs� in respect of teaching faculty available at various District Institutes of Education and Training specifically the� District Institute of Education and Training at Basti. In paragraph-17 of the affidavit it has been stated that total number of� posts sanctioned for each District Institute of Education and Training is 1 principal, 1 vice-principal, 6 senior lecturers, 17 lecturers, 1 technical assistant, 1 statistical assistant and 1 work experience teacher. The total number of such posts has been disclosed as 70-70-420-1190-70-70-70 respectively, as there are 70 District Institutes of Education and Training through out the State of Uttar. 
Total existing strength of� faculty actually working against these sanctioned posts has been mentioned as 38 against the post of principal, 24 against the post of vice-principal and 59� against the post of senior lecturers, none against all remaining four posts. 
This Court fails to see as to how any training for teaching can be imparted with such low level of actual faculty members� being available at District Institutes of Education and Training. The State has put the norms of National Council for Teachers Education too shame and the National Council for Teachers Education is also� negligent� in� not taking appropriate action against the State Government� in the matter of� non-compliance of the terms for permitting the Basic Teaching Training Certificate Course and Special Basic Teaching Training Certificate Course being undertaken by the State Government in various District Institutes of Education and Training. It appears that the National Council for Teachers Education and the State Government are deficient in discharge of their duties. Instead of ensuring proper training of teacher students, a mockery is being made only for the purposes of awarding Basic Teaching Training Certificates/Special Basic Teaching Training Certificates.
An affidavit was filed again on 28th May, 2010 by the then Director, State Council of Education, Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow and in paragraph-7 it has been stated that a decision has been taken by the State Government under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. at Lucknow on 11th May, 2010 to issue orders for inviting teacher trainers by the State Council of Education, Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow on contractual basis. The� issuance of the Government Order is under process. What has happened thereafter is not known, but the training at various District Institutes of Education and Training continues uninterrupted. 
If the facts noticed above are correct, this� Court has no hesitation to record that the State Government has become the worst polluter of the system of education in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the National Council for Teachers Education has become a mute spectator. 
The Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Government at Lucknow shall appear before this Court on 31st August, 2012 along with his personal affidavit disclosing the action taken and the total number of contract appointees� actually appointed at various District Institutes of Education and Training till date in terms of the decision of the State Government on 11th may, 2010. 
This Court may record that if the requisite number of teachers educated are not appointed in District Institutes of Education and Training in terms of the Regulations of National Council for Teachers Education, this Court will have no other option but to stop teaching at all District Institutes of Education and Training till such requisite number of teaching faculties are actually provided
List this matter on 31st August, 2012. 
Sri Rajeev Joshi, learned counsel for the National Council for Teachers Education is directed to appear before this Court on the next date. Learned counsel for the petitioner may serve a copy of this order upon Sri Rajeev Joshi.

(Arun Tandon, J.)

Order Date :- 17.8.2012
Sushil/-

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2021739 
Read more...

Thursday, August 30, 2012

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement regarding Mistakes in OMR etc

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement regarding Mistakes in OMR etc.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34295 of 2012
Anil Kumar Mishar
Vs.
State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.
Petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by respondent no. 2.
Petitioner had applied for consideration of his candidature for Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 for Junior Primary Level Examination under General Category. Petitioner appeared and claims that he was provided question booklet of ''A' series and further submits that due to inadvertence mistake has been committed in OMR answer sheet no. 148045 as in the question booklet as provided code ''B' has been filled up in place of Code ''A'. 
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." 
Petitioner thereafter applied and petitioner has been informed that he has received 38 marks. Now petitioner has rushed to this Court contending therein that due to inadvertence he had incorrectly filled up booklet code on the question booklet as such correction be carried out and answer sheet be rechecked accordingly. 
On the matter being taken up today, Sri J.P.N.Singh, Advocate appearing with Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate submits that his OMR Sheet is liable to be rechecked on the basis of question booklet ''A' and authority has erred in law by not correcting the same, whereas this was a case of human error, as due to inadvertence Code "B" had been mentioned as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. 
Countering the said submission Sri Neeraj Upadhya, Advocate representing State on the other hand contended that such error cannot be corrected, and rectified as of now inasmuch as petitioner himself has faulted in filling the incorrect code in OMR answer sheet no. 148045 as booklet code ''B' in place of Code ''A' and it is practically impossible to accept the request of the petitioner looking to the number of candidates who have undertaken the text and as far as earlier directives are concerned inquiry is in respect of illegalities committed at the level of respondents and at no point of time said judgment has given liberty to correct error committed in the booklet, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 
After respective arguments have been advanced factual situation which has so emerged in the present case 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. Said judgment and order cannot be stretched to permit even error committed by examinee to be corrected, the request for correction has to be confined qua any illegality committed by respondents, and said situation was to be remedied by correcting their records qua evaluation/assessment etc and nothing beyond the same. 
In the present case petitioner, himself is responsible for such a situation by filling incorrect as Code ''B' in place of Code ''A' on the question booklet as such no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner. OMR sheets are checked by computer and the moment OMR sheet is permitted to be erased by erasing Code "B" and putting Code "A" computer would refuse to accept the same. Correction on OMR sheet is not practically feasible and mannual examination, in such large examination is also not feasible. 
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. 
Dated 19th July, 2012 
Dhruv

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1970588
Read more...

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgment to provide Correct TET Certificate to candidate

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgment to provide Correct TET Certificate to candidate




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36861 of 2012

Petitioner :- Km. Anuradha Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- Raj Kumar Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 
Petitioner is contending that she had applied for consideration of her candidature as Scheduled Caste category candidate in Teacher Eligibility Test. Petitioner has stated that certificate which has been issued to her, quite incorrectly describes her as general category candidate. Petitioner submits that records are to be set right and in this regard she has also requested by means of representation dated 8.5.2012, but no action has been taken
Consequently, Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad is directed to see and ensure that final decision is taken on the representation so moved on behalf of the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within period of next eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, on the basis of records available. 
With these observation? writ petition is disposed of. 
Order Date :- 31.7.2012
T.S.

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1992579 
Read more...

UPTET - Article By Shyam Dev Mishra on Current Situation of recruitment through UPTET


UPTET - Article By Shyam Dev Mishra on Current Situation of recruitment through UPTET






 प्रशिक्षु प्राथमिक शिक्षको की भर्ती-प्रक्रिया : आजतक की वस्तुस्थिति

प्रिय मित्रों,
टी.ई.टी. संघर्ष से जुड़े तमाम विश्वसनीय साथियों (जिनमे से बहन अंजलि राय, भाई सुजीत सिंह, गणेश दीक्षित, निर्भय सिंह, राजेश प्रताप सिंह, सदानंद मिश्रा, अजय सिसोदिया, ज्ञानेश देव, अर्जुन सिंह, अमितेश पाण्डेय, आनंद तिवारी, शलभ तिवारी, विकास पाण्डेय, पीयूष चतुर्वेदी सहित अन्य महत्वपूर्ण लोग सम्मिलित हैं) द्वारा आनलाइन दी गयी जानकारी के बाद भी हमारे तमाम साथी इस बात से या तो अनभिज्ञ हैं या आशंकित कि हमारे साथ अर्थात टी.ई.टी. मेरिट के आधार पर चयन की पूर्व-निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ आनेवाले दिनों में सरकार क्या खेल खेलने वाली है, बहुतों को तो ऐसा लग रहा है कि सरकार द्वारा कल बेसिक शिक्षा (अध्यापक) सेवा नियमावली में 13वे संशोधन के द्वारा शिक्षकों की भर्ती अकादमिक मेरिट के आधार पर करने की व्यवस्था इस 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती पर लागू होगी. अत्यंत सामान्य बुद्धि से सोचा जाये तो भी स्पष्ट है कि कोई नियम बनने की तारीख और उसके बाद प्रभावी होता है न कि पिछली किसी तारीख से. 
वैसे कैबिनेट के निर्णय में जहाँ सी.टी.ई.टी. को भी अर्हता में शामिल करना इंगित करता है कि यह बदलाव या संशोधन भावी /आगामी भर्तियों को ध्यान में रखकर की गई हो सकती हैं, पर अगर सरकार यह संशोधन 72825 भर्तियों पर लागू करना चाहे तो चयन के आधार के साथ-साथ आयु सीमा में भी परिवर्तन के जैसे कदम, जो वर्तमान प्रक्रिया में अर्ह तमाम अभ्यर्थियों को बिना किसी कारण के अनर्ह करके प्रक्रिया से बाहर कर देंगे, किसी भी प्रकार कोर्ट में वैध नहीं ठहराए जा सकते. वैसे जिस प्रकार सरकार द्वारा गुप-चुप तरीके से संशोधन करके इरादतन अस्पष्ट और संक्षिप्त प्रेस-विज्ञप्ति जारी हुई और समाचार-पत्रों में आधे-अधूरे विवरण प्रकाशित हुए, उनसे अभ्यर्थियों में अटकलबाजियों का दौर शुरू हो गया है, पर इस सब से घबराने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है क्यूंकि सरकार की मंशा अगर इन परिवर्तनों को 72825 पदों की भर्ती पर लागू करने की है भी तो उसके रास्ते में न्यायालय खडा है . वैसे टी.ई.टी. मेरिट समर्थक इस लड़ाई के लिए एकजुट और तैयार हैं और यदि किसी भी प्रकार कोर्ट इनके पक्ष में निर्णय नहीं देता, जिसकी सम्भावना कतई नहीं दिखती, तो हमारे साथी डबल बेंच से लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक इस हक़ की लड़ाई को लड़ने के लिए कमर कसे बैठे हैं, जरुरत है तो इनका साथ देने की, इनका मनोबल बढ़ाने की. 
फिर भी इस प्रकार की दु:शंका दूर करने के लिए और वस्तुस्थिति से अभी तक अनभिज्ञ साथियों की जानकारी के लिए फिर से दोहराना पड़ रहा है कि हमारा पूरा संगठन एकजुट होकर इस लड़ाई को लड़ रहा है और शायद पहली बार ये लग रहा है कि हम जीत के बहुत करीब हैं. यह सत्य है कि तमाम प्रयासों के बाद भी २७ अगस्त २०१२ तक इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय में चल रहे मामले में टी.ई.टी. समर्थको का अधिकृत रूप से पक्ष रखनेवाला कोई नहीं था जिसके कारण शायद जज साहब को भी टी.ई.टी. की वास्तविकता और महत्ता, एन.सी.टी.ई. द्वारा जारी इस से सम्बंधित दिशा-निर्देशों के आलोक में वर्तमान विज्ञप्ति की वैधता और सरकार-मीडिया द्वारा जान-बुझकर किये जा रहे दुष्प्रचार की सही जानकारी नहीं थी. इसी बीच 23 जुलाई को सरकार ने टी.ई.टी.-2011 को जब मात्र अर्हता परीक्षा बनाने और वर्तमान विज्ञप्ति को रद्द कर अकादमिक मेरिट के आधार पर भर्ती करने का निर्णय लिया तो हमारे साथी रत्नेश पाल, अभिषेक त्रिपाठी, नवीन कुमार और एस.के. पाठक ने अलग-अलग याचिकाओं में सरकार के इस निर्णय को चुनौती देते हुए इसे रद्द करने की मांग की जिसपर माननीय वी. के. शुक्ल जी की एकल बेंच ने पूर्णतया सकारात्मक रवैया दिखाते अर्थात प्रथम दृष्टया अपील को विचार-योग्य मानकर इन्हें भी माननीय अरुण टंडन के न्यायालय में चल रहे मामले से सम्बद्ध कर दिया. गौरतलब है कि विचार के दौरान माननीय न्यायाधीश महोदय ने सरकार के रवैये को राजनैतिक नाटक की संज्ञा दी. यह सब कुछ निर्धारित योजना के अनुरूप ही हुआ.

इस प्रकार २७ अगस्त को कोर्ट में टी.ई.टी. समर्थकों का पक्ष रखने के लिए पहली बार अधिकृत रूप से शाशिनंदन जी, अशोक खरे जी, अभिषेक श्रीवास्तव एवं वी.के. सिंह आदि चार वकील मोर्चे पर डटे थे जिसका स्पष्ट फायदा भी दिखा. शायद पहली बार न्यायाधीश महोदय को इस विषय का सिलसिले-वार ब्यौरा, जिसमे एन.सी.टी.ई. द्वारा शिक्षकों के लिए योग्यता निर्धारण के दौरान टी.ई.टी. प्रारंभ करना, सरकार द्वारा नियमावली में परिवर्तन करके टी.ई.टी. को चयन का आधार बनाना, टी.ई.टी. की महता और उसके विषय में तथ्यात्मक जानकारी, टी.ई.टी. का आयोजन एवं परिणाम की घोषणा, शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए विज्ञप्ति का प्रकाशन, आवेदकों द्वारा विज्ञप्ति के आधार पर आवेदन, सरकार द्वारा तथाकथित धांधली के प्रभाव को न्यून करने के नाम पर प्रक्रिया के बीच में चयन का आधार बदलने के लिए नियमावली में परिवर्तन के मंत्री-परिषद् के निर्णय और उसपर उठाई गयी आपत्तियां आदि शामिल है, दिया गया जिसे उन्होंने गौर से सुना. वकीलों द्वारा इस स्तर तक बढ़ चुकी प्रक्रिया के बीच में चयन का आधार बदलने को न्यायसंगत न मानने की बात से भी वो सहमत प्रतीत हुए. 

चूंकि सरकारी वकील ने हमारे पक्ष के वकीलों की दलीलों और उनपर कोर्ट के सकारात्मक रुख को देखते हुए मैदान छोड़ना सही मानकर स्पष्ट कर दिया था कि सरकार की ओर से हलफनामा नहीं लाए हैं, उन्होंने कोर्ट से समय माँगा जिसपर न्यायाधीश महोदय ने उन्हें अगले दिन पेश होने को कहा. इस पर सरकारी वकील ने अगले दिन यानि २८ अगस्त को इस सम्बन्ध में निर्णय के लिए अर्थात चयन का आधार बदलने के लिए नियमावली में संशोधन करने के लिए प्रस्तावित कैबिनेट की बैठक का हवाला देते हुए स्थिति स्पष्ट करने के लिए कुछ समय माँगा. हमारे वकीलों ने हस्तक्षेप करते हुए इस बात को उठाया कि इस प्रकार का किया जाने वाला संशोधन तो आगे होने वाली नियुक्तियों पर लागु हो सकता है, इस प्रक्रिया पर नहीं. न्यायाधीश महोदय ने सहमति जताते हुए सरकार को अपना पक्ष रखने के लिए अगले सोमवार यानि 3 सितम्बर २०१२ कि तारीख दे दी. न्यायालय में अपनी प्रभावी पैरवी और उसपर न्यायालय का रुख हमारे लिए एक संजीवनी सा उत्साह-वर्धक साबित हुआ है. इस से इस सत्य का आभास हुआ है कि कानूनी तौर पे मजबूती के बावजूद आज की परिस्थितियों में सच को भी सच साबित करने के लिए एकजुटता, संगठन और प्रभावी प्रस्तुतीकरण जरुरी है और अब हम समय के साथ, सही रास्ते पर चल पड़े हैं और मंजिल मिलना भी तय है.

एक बात यहाँ अप्रासंगिक लग सकती है पर आप सबके साथ साझा करना चाहूँगा कि विज्ञापन के तकनीकी तौर पर रद्द होने की आशंका भी अब निराधार प्रतीत होती है. बी.एस.ए. द्वारा जिलेवार विज्ञप्ति के स्थान पर सचिव द्वारा उनकी ओर से राज्य-स्तर पर एक विज्ञप्ति के द्वारा आवेदन आमंत्रित करने को विधि-विरुद्ध बताते हुए कपिल यादव द्वारा उठाई गई आपत्ति के जवाब में सरकार की ओर से तत्कालीन सचिव, बेसिक शिक्षा, श्री अनिल संत द्वारा दाखिल हलफनामे में स्पष्ट कहा गया है कि माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा निर्धारित कानून के अनुसार कोई अभ्यर्थी जिस प्रक्रिया का हिस्सा है, उसे चुनौती नहीं दे सकता. साथ ही हलफनामे में स्पष्ट रूप से यह भी कहा गया था कि यह भर्ती प्रमुख रूप से "प्रशिक्षु अध्यापकों" कि भर्ती है न कि "सहायक अध्यापकों" कि भर्ती. उन्होंने स्पष्ट किया कि कपिल यादव ने बेसिक शिक्षा (अध्यापक) सेवा नियमावली, १९८१ में चयन-भर्ती के लिए बी.एस.ए. द्वारा द्वारा जिलेवार विज्ञप्ति निकले जाने की जिस व्यवस्था का उल्लेख किया है, वह "सहायक अध्यापकों" के चयन के लिए लागू होती है. एक बिलकुल ही नई अवधारणा के तहत "प्रशिक्षु अध्यापक" के रूप में यह भर्ती प्रदेश में शिक्षकों की कमी पूरी करने के उद्देश्य से एन.सी.टी.ई. द्वारा दी गई विशेष अनुमति के तहत पहली बार की जा रही है, अतएव इनके चयन या भर्ती के लिए किसी पूर्व-निर्धारित किसी प्रक्रिया या नियम के होने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता, ऐसी स्थिति में राज्य-सरकार आवश्यक नियम और प्रक्रिया का निर्धारण एवं क्रियान्वयन करने के लिए पूर्णतया सक्षम है. अतएव वैधानिक दृष्टि से राज्य-सरकार कतई बाध्य नहीं है कि "सहायक अध्यापकों" के चयन-भर्ती के लिए निर्धारित प्रक्रिया का पालन "प्रशिक्षु अध्यापकों" के चयन-भर्ती के लिए भी करे. इस प्रकार जहाँ तक वैधानिक रूप से विज्ञप्ति के गलत होने का प्रश्न न्यायालय में नेपथ्य में जा चुका है.

तमाम भाइयों को यह नागवार गुजर रहा है कि कोर्ट ने पहले स्टे क्यूँ नहीं हटा लिया और प्रक्रिया शुरू करने की छूट सरकार को क्यूँ नहीं दी? आप स्वयं समझ सकते हैं कि पल-पल रंग बदल रही सरकार स्टे हटने पर विज्ञप्ति के अनुसार भर्ती करने के बजाय किसी न किसी आधार पर विज्ञप्ति रद्द करके नए आधार पर मनमाने तरीके से भर्ती करती. ऐसी स्थिति में या तो आप चुपचाप बैठ कर अन्याय सहते या फिर नई प्रक्रिया के खिलाफ कोर्ट में नए सिरे से लड़ाई लड़ते, जिसमे कोई जरुरी न होता कि प्रक्रिया पर स्टे मिलता. ऐसी सूरत में आप कोर्ट में लड़ते रहते और अगर कभी जीत भी जाते तो उस समय तक वो भर्ती पूरी हो चुकी होती. ऐसे में आप कोर्ट से कहने को तो भले जीत जाते पर असलियत में आप हार चुके होते. ऐसे में बेहतर है कि सरकार कि हर वो चाल, जिसे स्टे मिलने के बाद वो कोर्ट के दायरे से मुक्त होकर चल पाती, आज कानून की निगरानी में है, उसकी न्यायिक समीक्षा के बाद कोर्ट की हरी झंडी मिलने की सूरत में ही वो क्रियान्वित हो सकती है. इसके अलावा बी.टी.सी./ वि.बी.टी.सी. वाले भाइयों के बी.एड. अभ्यर्थियों से इतर चयन प्रक्रिया और नियुक्ति का मसला भी बाकी है जिसको लेकर कोर्ट ने सरकार से तारीख-वार कार्य-योजना तलब की है. अतः आज की स्थिति में ये न्यायालय का संरक्षण ही है जो इस सरकार की मनमानी से इस प्रक्रिया को आजतक बचाए हुए है. 

फेसबुक पर समय-समय पर उपयोगी जानकारी देने वाले हमारे साथी अमितेश पांडे जी, अर्जुन सिंह जी और आनंद तिवारी जी द्वारा न्यायालय में हमारे पक्ष के वकील अभिषेक श्रीवास्तव, जोकि कि बी.टी.सी. वालों के भी वकील हैं, द्वारा प्रमुख रूप से मात्र बी.टी.सी. अभ्यर्थियों के पक्ष में की गई बहस के औचित्य पर उठाये गए प्रश्नों और उनके द्वारा सभी वकीलों द्वारा एक-दुसरे के साथ मिलकर एक मजबूत मोर्चे के रूप में अपना पक्ष मजबूती से रखने की जताई गई आवश्यकता को लड़ाई के इस भाग में नज़र-अंदाज़ नहीं किया जा सकता. इस सम्बन्ध में स्वयं भाई रत्नेश पाल से २७ अगस्त (सुनवाई वाली रात) बातचीत के दौरान यह जानकर संतुष्टि हुई कि वे भी अपने साथियों की आशंकाओं से न सिर्फ अवगत और सहमत है बल्कि उन्होंने भी भाई सुजीत जी से इस सम्बन्ध में विस्तृत वार्ता की है ताकि इस लड़ाई में आपसी एकजुटता में किसी प्रकार की कमजोरी न आने पाए, हमारा कोई प्रयास हमारे ही लिए हानिकारक न हो जाये, सभी वकील एकमात्र टी.ई.टी. मेरिट से चयन की वकालत करे. उन्होंने भरोसा दिलाया है कि इस सम्बन्ध में समय रहते आवश्यक कदम उठाये जा रहे हैं ताकि किसी संभावित दुष्परिणाम से बचा जा सके और जीत हासिल की जा सके. 

मैंने जो कुछ यहाँ लिखा है, ज्यादातर मित्रो को पहले से ही विदित होगा पर मुझे फिर से ये सब लिखने की जरुरत अपने तमाम साथियों द्वारा व्यक्त कि जा रही जिज्ञासाओं और आशंकाओं के कारण महसूस हुई है. आप में से बहुतों के लिए बासी और अनावश्यक सामग्री को प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह भी अनुरोध है कि यदि मैं भूलवश अगर कुछ गलत लिख गया होऊं या कुछ महत्वपूर्ण बात रह गयी हो तो आप इसमें जोड़ने / सुधार करने का सहयोग प्रदान करेंगे.



Read more...

HPTET : Himachal Pradesh HP TET JBT result 2012 declared: Click and Check results


Himachal Pradesh TET Examination / HPTET News : - http://hptet.blogspot.com/

HPTET : Himachal Pradesh HP TET JBT result 2012 declared: Click and Check results


Himachal Pradesh HP TET JBT result 2012 has been declared. The teacher eligibility test results are available on the Himachal Pradesh School Education Board website http://hpeducationboard.nic.in
Click here to check results


HP BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DHARAMSHALA-176213
TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (JBT) RESULT - 2012 ( ROLL NO WISE)

Click Here to See Result - http://hpbose.org/Admin/Upload/TET-RESULT.pdf

29-08-2012Teacher Eligibility Test (JBT) Result Sept-2012 


From list of result, we can see ONLY 3956 candidates clear HPTET examination.
Very poor result.

According to the NCTE guidelines , Candidate must clear the Teacher Eligibility Test to become eligible for appointment as a teacher. And selection of teachers , weight-age of TET marks counted. Therefore it is highly important examination for teaching job aspiring candidates.
Candidates can reappear in TET examination to improve score (As per NCTE Guildelines )

My Blog congratulates the successful candidates of the HP TET organized by HPBOSE.



Read more...

TNTET : 1% of state teachers passed eligibility test

TNTET : 1% of state teachers passed eligibility test

Female Candidates Perform Better Than Male Candidates - 
Surprisingly of the total 2,448 teachers more women (1,680) qualified than their male counterparts (768)

TNTET RESULT ANALYSIS at Bottom of News

Tamilnadu Teacher Eligibility Test 2012 -
Teachers Recruitment Board  College Road, Chennai-600006

Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) – 2012

Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligiblity Test 2012
Tentative Provisional List of Candidates Selected for TNTET 2012 - PAPER I : - See List of Candidates - http://trb.tn.nic.in/TET2012/24082012/P1RESULT.pdf

Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligiblity Test 2012
Tentative Provisional List of Candidates Selected for TNTET 2012 - PAPER II P : - See List of Candidates - http://trb.tn.nic.in/TET2012/24082012/P2RESULT.pdf

Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligiblity Test 2012
Communal Tentative Provisional List of Candidates Selected for TNTET 2012 - PAPER I P : - See List - http://trb.tn.nic.in/TET2012/24082012/P1CRESUL.pdf

Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligiblity Test 2012
Communal Tentative Provisional List of Candidates Selected for TNTET 2012 - PAPER II :- See List of candidates - http://trb.tn.nic.in/TET2012/24082012/P2CRESUL.pdf









CHENNAI: Raising concerns about the poor calibre of teachers in taking competitive tests, less than 1% of candidates who sat for the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test on July 12 passed. Candidates attributed the poor result to the lack of time to complete the exam.

"We were told to take extreme caution in colouring the bubbles in the OMR sheet," said Santhosh Raj, a middle school teacher. "This is the first time we are coming across this answer sheet. Just colouring our answer options took a lot of time," he said. Many said they could not find time to study with a full time job. Of the 6.67 lakh candidates, whose answer sheets were evaluated, only 2,448 passed



It was probably for the first time in decades that school teachers in the state were sitting for a competitive test. There was stiff resistance initially, particularly from those with just a couple of years to retire and from those who had registered with employment exchanges and were waiting for a job in a government school.

While more than half of the successful candidates were women, the toppers in each category were also women. Surjit K Chaudhary, chairman of the Teachers Recruitment Board, which conducted the test, said M Priya of Udumalpet topped Paper 1 with 122 out of 150 marks, while P Chitra of Vedaranyam in Nagapattinam topped Paper 2 with 142 of 150, topping the science with mathematics category. Arulvani of Cumbum district topped social studies with 125 of 150 marks.

The Right To Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act mandates that all teachers of Classes 1 to 8 and those aspiring to become teachers clear the test to ensure quality education for students.

The low pass percentage in the TET has forced the TRB to conduct a supplementary test on October 3, which will be declared a holiday for schools. The duration of the examination will be increased from one-and-a-half hour to three hours. The results are expected to be out before the end of October.


News Source : Times of India (26.8.12)
*******************************
TNTET : Many young teachers clear eligibility test


With less than 1 per cent of teachers in the state qualifying for the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) it has come to light that mostly teachers in the age group of 25 to 30 years had cleared the test. Interestingly, no graduate teacher who teaches Class VI to X has cleared the test in the Nilgiris district.

According to data provided by the Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB), of the 1,91,596 teachers who took the test, 1,016 qualified in the age group of 26 to 30 years (0.53 per cent) and 889 qualified in the age of group 25 and below (0.31 per cent).

A total of 121 Secondary Grade teachers from Salem district qualified followed by Dharmapuri with 116 and 99 from Vellore (all educationally backward districts).

Meanwhile Chennai recorded a pass percentage of 0.59 with just 69 out of 11,731 clearing the exam. Only four teachers from the Nilgiris district crossed the pass mark in this category.

The situation is different when it comes to graduate teachers. Seventy teachers passed the test (paper-II Maths and Science) from Cuddalore, 23 from Villupuram and 22 from Dharmapuri.

Here too all three districts are considered as educationally backward whereas the state capital, Chennai, recorded 0.07 per cent (12 out of 16,109).

Surprisingly of the total 2,448 teachers more women (1,680) qualified than their male counterparts (768).


News Source : Deccan Chronicle (29.8.12)
******************************************
Result is very very poor and only 1% candidate passed, while in CTET 4% (approx) candidates passed  this exam, And in UPTET 45% (approx ) candidates passed in examination.

Supplement exam is going to conduct as many teachers failed in exam. Young candidates shows performance and girls performs better. In both paper I and paper - II, Girls are topper in examination.
Read more...