Sarkari Naukri Recruitment Result टीईटी शिक्षक भर्ती TET UPTET BETET Merit/Counselling/Appointment

Thursday, September 20, 2012

HPTET : टेट की मेरिट पर नौकरी देने पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक

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

HPTET : टेट की मेरिट पर नौकरी देने पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक

Himachal Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test News :

शिमला. हिमाचल प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने टीजीटी की नियुक्ति के लिए भर्ती और पदोन्नति नियमों पर छूट देने वाले उन आदेशों को स्थाई कर दिया है, जिसके तहत टेट में हासिल मेरिट के आधार पर तैनाती देने का प्रावधान किया गया है।

मुख्य न्यायाधीश कुरियन जोसेफ व न्यायाधीश धर्मचंद चौधरी की खंडपीठ ने विजय पटियाल की तरफ से दायर याचिका की सुनवाई के दौरान ये आदेश पारित किए। हाईकोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार के उस आग्रह को अस्वीकार कर दिया, जिसके तहत राज्य सरकार ने गत चार जुलाई को पारित स्थगन आदेश से रोक हटाने की गुहार लगाई थी।

हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि टेट परीक्षा केवल उम्मीदवारों की योग्यता को आंकने का जरिया मात्र है और यह नियुक्ति के लिए जरिया नहीं है। इसके लिए प्रतियोगिता परीक्षा अनिवार्य है। कोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार को याचिका का जवाब दायर करने के लिए अतिरिक्त समय दिया।

टीजीटी के समकक्ष परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करना जरूरी

हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि राज्य सरकार की तरफ से न्यायालय के समक्ष पेश किए गए रिकॉर्ड के दृष्टिगत राज्य सरकार स्थगन आदेश से रोक हटाने के लिए कानूनी तौर पर नाकाम रही है। याचिका में दिए गए तथ्यों के अनुसार शिक्षा विभाग की तरफ से टीजीटी की नियुक्ति के लिए 2009 में बनाए गए पदोन्नति और भर्ती नियमों के तहत उक्त पदों के लिए टीजीटी के समकक्ष परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करना अति आवश्यक है। इन नियमों में किसी तरह की छूट का प्रावधान नहीं है।

News source : Bhaskar.com (20.9.12)

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

HPTET - नियुक्ति का आधार नहीं है टेट : हाईकोर्ट

हिमाचल प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने टीजीटी की नियुक्ति के लिए भर्ती एवं पदोन्नति के नियमों पर छूट देने के संदर्भ में उस आदेश को स्थायी कर दिया है, जिसके तहत टेट में हासिल मेरिट के आधार पर नियुक्ति देने का प्रावधान किया गया था। मुख्य न्यायाधीश कुरियन जोसेफ और न्यायाधीश धर्मचंद चौधरी की खंडपीठ ने दिग्विजय पटियाल की दायर याचिका की सुनवाई के दौरान यह आदेश पारित किए। हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार के इस आग्रह को अस्वीकार कर दिया जिसके तहत उसने चार जुलाई को पारित स्थगन आदेश से रोक हटाने की गुहार लगाई थी।

हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा न्यायालय के समक्ष पेश किए रिकार्ड के दृष्टिगत सरकार स्थगन आदेश से रोक हटाने के लिए कानूनी तौर पर नाकाम रही है। याचिका में दिए तथ्यों के अनुसार शिक्षा विभाग द्वारा टीजीटी की नियुक्ति के लिए 2009 में बनाए पदोन्नति एवं भर्ती नियमों के तहत टीजीटी परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करना अति आवश्यक है और इन नियमों में किसी तरह की छूट का प्रावधान नहीं है। टेट केवल उम्मीदवार की योग्यता को आंकने का मात्र जरिया है। यह परीक्षा नियुक्ति के लिए जरिया नहीं है। न्यायालय ने राज्य सरकार को याचिका का जवाब दायर करने के लिए अतिरिक्त समय दिया।

News Source : Jagran ( 20.9.12)
**********************

HP govt response sought on plea challenging TGT recruitment order

SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh high court on Wednesday directed the state government to file a 'short reply' within two weeks as to how selection to the post of trained graduate teachers (TGT) was permissible without following the selection norms under the Recruitment and Promotion rules.

The court had stayed the notification of the department of Elementary Education of June 27, 2012 and also made it clear that until further orders, there shall be no appointment to any post of TGTs -- medical, non-medical and arts -- except in accordance with the rules.

A division bench comprising chief justice Kurian Joseph and justice D C Chaudhary passed these orders on the petition filed by one Digvijay Patyal, who challenged the notification of the department of Elementary Education, wherein it was provided that the posts of TGT in various disciplines (Arts, Non-Medical and Medical) are to be filled in relaxation of recruitment process based on merit of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

The petitioner alleged that the state was not giving appointment as per the prescribed rules and norms existing at the time of commencement of the selection process. It was offering appointment only on basis of merit of eligibility test and not following the procedure as laid down in the recruitment and promotion rules.

The petitioner sought a direction to the state government to hold a regular test as provided in Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department Trained Graduate Teacher and class-III (Non-Gazetted) R and P rules, 2009 for the recruitment of TGTs in various disciplines as was followed during normal couse of appointment in the past.
News Source : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-05/news/32550512_1_recruitment-selection-norms-appointment

************************
Case Number Details -

HIEF JUSTICE'S COURT

   HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE
   HON'BLE  MR. JUSTICE DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

                              FOR PRESENCE OF PARTIES

735. CWP 5149/2012             DIGVIJAY PATYAL            MUKUL SOOD
     CMP7539,9199/2012         Vs STATE                   /AG INDER SHARMA,BHUVNESH SHARMA,R.KANT
     WITH
     CWP 5214/2012             BIMLA THAKUR               ONKAR JAIRATH
                               Vs STATE                   /AG RAJESH KUMAR
     CMP7638/2012
     CWP 5645/2012             CHAULDIM DORJE             DALIP K.SHARMA
                               Vs STATE                   /AG INDER SHARMA
     CMP8065/2012
     CWP 5716/2012             VED BHUSHAN                ADARSH K.VASHISTA
                               Vs STATE                   /AG RAJESH KUMAR
     CMP8183/2012
     CWP 6610/2012             PANKAJ SHARMA              SANJEEV SOOD
                               Vs STATE                   /AG INDER SHARMA D.K.KHANA
     CMP9420/2012, 10796/2012

News Analysis :

Candidates need not be confused TET exam can be used for selection OR NOT.

By reading this NEWS , You can analyze that TET Merit can not be used for TGT selection, For TGT selection - A similar exam equivalent to TGT should be conduct.

If anybody have better explanation then he is WELCOME to provide details.

I have not seen Shimla HC copy.

NCTE guidelines for TET is applicable for PRT and Upper PRT teacher, where it suggests weightage of TET marks in selection. If no weightage of TET marks in selection then why a candidate will reappear in TET exam to improve his/her marks.

However relaxation in TET etc. is in hands of State. And weighatge etc. in the hand of STATE.

CGTET : अब पदोन्नति में भी टीईटी जरूरी

नए मापदंड से उलझन में हैं प्रदेश भर के शिक्षाकर्मी।
भिलाई
शिक्षाकर्मियों की पदोन्नति के लिए भी अब टीईटी ((शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा)) उत्तीर्ण होना जरूरी है। अभी तक केवल नियुक्ति में ही यह प्रावधान था। छत्तीसगढ़ शासन पंचायत एवं ग्रामीण विकास विभाग मंत्रालय ने पदोन्नति के यह नए नियम तय किए हैं।
शासन की ओर शिक्षाकर्मी भर्ती एवं पदोन्नति के लिए 17 अगस्त को नया दिशा निर्देश जारी किया गया है जिसमें भर्ती के साथ-साथ अब पदोन्नति के लिए भी टीईटी पास होना जरूरी है। इनके अलावा कुछ और भी संशोधन किए गए हैं। इसमें वर्ग-2 से वर्ग-1 में पदोन्नत होने वाले शिक्षाकर्मियों को सात साल की सेवा अवधि, बीएड डिग्री व टीईटी उत्तीर्ण होने के साथ ही स्नातकोत्तर में अब द्वितीय श्रेणी अनिवार्य होगा। पहले द्वितीय श्रेणी की बाध्यता नहीं थी। केवल स्नातकोत्तर होना ही पर्याप्त था। इसी तरह वर्ग-3 से वर्ग-2 मे पदोन्नति के लिए सात साल की सेवा अवधि, डीएड व टीईटी के साथ ही अब स्नातक द्वितीय श्रेणी से पास होना जरूरी है। वर्तमान में अधिकतर शिक्षाकर्मियों के पास डीएड व बीएड की डिग्री है। रा'य शासन ने टीईटी की परीक्षा पिछले साल की ली है। इसके हिसाब से तो अभी भर्ती भी नहीं हुई है। ऐसे में टीईटी उत्तीर्ण होने वाले शिक्षकों की संख्या नहीं के बराबर है। यदि कोई टीईटी उत्तीर्ण हो भी तो यह जरूरी नहीं कि वह स्नातक या स्नातकोत्तर द्वितीय श्रेणी में पास हो।
अब क्या होगा : जिन शिक्षाकर्मियों की पदोन्नति की प्रक्रिया चल रही है वह बाधित हो सकती है। जिले में 200 शिक्षाकर्मियों की पदोन्नति के लिए 22 सितंबर को जिला पंचायत में काउंसिलिंग है।
तो टीईटी में शामिल हो जाते : अगर रा'य शासन पदोन्नति के लिए टीईटी उत्तीर्ण होने की अनिवार्यता का खुलासा पहले ही कर दिया होता तो पदोन्नति के पात्र शिक्षाकर्मी भी परीक्षा में शामिल हो जाते

News Source : Bhaskar (20.9.12)
************************************
News Analysis : See -How much important is TET examination.
Many state made TET mandatory to qualify. Now its use in PROMOTION also.

BETET : टीईटी उत्तीर्ण छात्रों में शिक्षक बन पाने को लेकर संशय की स्थिति

सेमापुर (कटिहार) : शिक्षक योग्यता पास अभ्यर्थियों में शिक्षक बन पाने को लेकर संशय की स्थिति है। टीईटी के परिणाम आने के बाद सीट से कम रिजल्ट को देखकर अभ्यर्थियों में शिक्षक बनने की जो उम्मीद थी वह बहाली प्रक्रिया को देखकर समाप्त हो गयी। उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थी नवीन कुमार चौधरी, राजकुमार साह, विपिन कुमार, बालकृष्ण पटेल आदि ने बताया कि टीईटी परीक्षा के समय नियमावली में सरकार ने स्पष्ट कुछ भी नहीं किया। रिजल्ट के बाद शिक्षा मंत्री पीके शाही द्वारा सबकी बहाली सुनिश्चित है की बात कही गई, लेकिन बहाली प्रक्रिया से शिक्षक बन पाना आसान नहीं है। अभ्यर्थियों को नौ हजार नियोजन इकाई से आवेदन की प्रक्रिया के कारण एक ही अभ्यर्थी का नाम कई जगह मेधा सूची में होगा। वहीं सभी जगह आवेदन करने में खर्च भी बढ़ गया है। सभी जगह मेधा सूची के प्रकाशन को देख पाना आसान नहीं है फिर काउंसलिंग की प्रक्रिया में भी अतिरिक्त खर्च होगा। सरकार द्वारा पुरानी व्यवस्था से मुखिया, सचिव व प्रमुख आदि के पौ बारह है। कई अभ्यर्थी तो गरीबी के कारण एक-दो जगह आवेदन देकर संतोष कर लेने में भलाई समझ रहे हैं। सरकार को अभ्यर्थी को सभी नियोजन इकाई में आवेदन देने की व्यवस्था ना करके जिला में आवेदन लेकर वहीं से मेधा बना नियोजन इकाई को भेज देना था। इससे गड़बड़ी की गुंजाइश भी नहीं होती एवं छात्र भी परेशान नहीं होता

Source : Jagran (20.9.12)
************************************
News Analysis - A similar case going to happen in Bihar. In UP a candidates applied in many districts of his choice. Now a similar case going to happen in Bihar.

In UP candidates applied in LT Grade Teacher Recruitment in 2010, And its counselling still running.

Why these states are not using ONLINE system for counselling, application etc. And instead of it using traditional system for apply i.e through speed post.

You can see on Internet there are several sites using NET BANKING / CREDIT CARD/ DEBIT Card payment system.

ONLINE Application system is really good and it can easily sort candidates list on Merit/Preference basis.

UPTET : छोटे जिलों में होगी सर्वाधिक शिक्षकों की भर्ती

UPTET : छोटे जिलों में होगी सर्वाधिक शिक्षकों की भर्ती

UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI News

UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz38rZoyMWQ

http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#ixzz38ra4C549

बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय ने शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए तैयारियां शुरू कर दी हैं। बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय में जिलेवार शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों का ब्यौरा प्राप्त हो गया है। जिलों से मिली सूचना के आधार पर सर्वाधिक पद छोटे जिलों में हैं। बड़े जिलों में अधिक रिक्तियां नहीं हैं।

बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय इसके आधार पर प्रस्ताव तैयार कर रहा है। इस संबंध में शीघ्र ही शासन को प्रस्ताव भेजने की तैयारी है, ताकि इसी माह भर्ती के लिए विज्ञापन निकाला जा सके। उधर, जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान (डायट) प्राचार्यों की गुरुवार को होने वाली बैठक स्थगित हो गई है। अब यह बैठक 22 सितंबर को होगी। बीटीसी की तर्ज पर शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए आवेदन ऑनलाइन लिए जाने की तैयारी है।

राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) से टीईटी पास बीएड डिग्रीधारकों को शिक्षक रखने की मंजूरी मिलने के बाद शासन ने बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय से जिलेवार रिक्तियों के आधार पर प्रस्ताव मांगा है। बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय ने जिलों से बीएसए सेरिक्तियों का ब्यौरा मांगा था। इसके आधार पर अधिकतर जिलों से रिक्तियों का ब्यौरा एकत्र हो गया है। इसके मुताबिक बड़े जिलों में काफी कम पद रिक्त हैं।

सर्वाधिक पद छोटे जिलों में रिक्त हैं। इसकी सबसे बड़ी वजह हाल में अंतरजनपदीय स्थानांतरण होना है। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद ने 18 हजार से अधिक शिक्षिकाओं के स्थानांतरण किए हैं। इसके चलते छोटे जिलों में शिक्षकों के पद अधिक रिक्त हो गए हैं। बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय रिक्तियों के आधार पर प्रस्ताव तैयार कर रहा है। बताया जाता है कि शीघ्र ही पदों के ब्यौरे के साथ शासन को प्रस्ताव भेज दिया जाएगा।

शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए जिलेवार विज्ञापन निकाले जाएंगे, लेकिन आवेदन ऑनलाइन लिए जाने की तैयारी है। शिक्षकों को बेसिक शिक्षा अध्यापक सेवा नियमावली के मुताबिक तैनाती दी जाएगी। इसमें महिला शिक्षकों को तीन साल और पुरुष शिक्षकों को पांच साल ग्रामीण क्षेत्र के स्कूलों में काम करना अनिवार्य होगा।

News Source : Amar Ujala (20.9.12)
***************************************
It is expected new advertisement come by this week, else hearing in court may be extended.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

UPTET : शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन

UPTET : शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन

UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI News

http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#ixzz38ra4C549

लखनऊ : बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित स्कूलों में 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए निकट भविष्य में शुरू होने वाली प्रक्रिया के तहत अभ्यर्थियों को ऑनलाइन आवेदन करना होगा। शासन स्तर पर इस बारे में सहमति बन चुकी है। उधर अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) के आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद को सौंपे जाने के प्रस्ताव को मुख्यमंत्री ने अनुमोदित कर दिया है। मंगलवार को प्रमुख सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा सुनील कुमार की अध्यक्षता में हुई बैठक में यह तय हुआ कि परिषदीय स्कूलों में शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए अभ्यर्थियों को ऑनलाइन आवेदन करना होगा। इससे पूरी प्रक्रिया में पारदर्शिता बनी रहती है। साथ ही आवेदनों में धांधली की गुंजायश न के बराबर होती है। गौरतलब है कि राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) ने राज्य सरकार को बीएड उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को 31 मार्च 2014 तक शिक्षक नियुक्त करने के लिए समयसीमा में छूट दे दी है। उधर हाई कोर्ट ने भी शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया जल्द शुरू करने का निर्देश दिया है। ऐसे में शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के लिए जल्द विज्ञापन जारी होने की संभावना है। शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के लिए बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग जिलेवार रिक्तियों का ब्योरा इकट्ठा कर रहा है। अब यह भी तय हो गया है कि भविष्य में राज्य में टीईटी का आयोजन सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद करायेंगे। इस संबंध में राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) की ओर से भेजे गए प्रस्ताव को मुख्यमंत्री ने अनुमोदित कर दिया है। पिछले साल टीईटी का आयोजन यूपी बोर्ड ने किया था। टीईटी के परीक्षा परिणाम में धांधली उजागर होने पर मुख्य सचिव जावेद उस्मानी की अध्यक्षता में गठित उच्च स्तरीय समिति ने परीक्षा के आयोजन के लिए संस्था के चयन का भी बिंदु उठाया था। इस पर एससीईआरटी ने टीईटी के आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद को सौंपने का प्रस्ताव भेजा था।

News Source : Jagran (19.9.12)
******************************
Online process for recruitment is going to start. Helps in speedy, efficient recruitment process and will take less time.

However Niyamavali for recruitment still unknown and picture may be clear by the end of this month.
(Next Hearing in Allahabad high court is on 27th Sept. 2012)

If anybody have updated Niyamavali with source link, then please provide it along with source link.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECISION REGARDING - STATE TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST HARYANA

ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29755/2010

(From the judgement and order dated 06/04/2010 in CWP
No.13045/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

MAHENDER KUMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 24882 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for intervention and permission to file rejoinder affidavit and with prayer for interim relief and office report)
with
I.A.No.1162 (Appln.for intervention)
SLP(C) NO. 24884 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of petitioner and office
report)
SLP(C) NO. 24883 of 2010
(With office report)
SLP(C) NO. 25010 of 2010
(With office report)

Date: 21/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) Mr.Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
Mr.N.P.Midha, Adv.
Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta,A.O.R.(Not Present)

For Respondent(s) Mr.P.P.Rao,Sr.Adv.
For RR Nos.1 & 3 Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.
Mr.Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv.

For RR No.4 Mr.D.S.Chauhan, Adv.
Mr.Rajinder Juneja, Adv.

For RR No.2 Mr. John Mathew,Adv.

Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

The IA No. 38 for deleting the name of petitoner no. 2852, i.e., Chaman S/o Dharamvir in SLP(C) No. 24884 of 2010 is allowed in terms of the prayer.

These petitions are directed against order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the exemption granted to the Guest Faculty (Lecturers / Teachers) from passing the requirement of School Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, 'STET') for the purpose of regular appointment to Group 'B' posts and the grant of weightage of 24 marks in lieu of the experience gained by working as Guest Faculty was quashed.

With a view to ensure that the education of students does not suffer due to non-availability of teachers the Government of Haryana, Department of Education framed policy for recruitment of Guest Faculty. For this purpose detailed guidelines were issued on 18.9.2006. After one year and two months, the State Government
issued instructions vide circular dated 17.11.2007 to all the concerned officers to stop engaging Teachers on the Guest Faculty basis. On 2.12.2008, the Government issued guidelines for temporary
adjustment of displaced Guest Teachers by way of stop gap arrangement. By circular dated 2.3.2009, the Government amended the terms and conditions enshrined in letters dated 29.11.2005,16.12.2005 and 27.9.2006 for engaging the Teachers on Guest
Faculty.
In furtherance of the requisition received from the concerned department, the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') issued advertisement no. 3 which was published in newspapers on 18.6.2009 for recruitment of 1317 Temporary Lecturers (School Cadre), HES-II (Group-B) were as under:

"Essential Qualification:
1.Essential Qualifications for the Lecturers of all   Subjects except Lecturer in Chemistry, History, Maths
and Pol. Science:
(i)Post Graduate Degree in relevant subject from a recognized university alongwith at least 50% marks.
(ii)Certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test.
(iii)Matric with Hindi / Sanskrit."
The relaxation clauses contained in the advertisement did not provide for exemption to any class / category of candidates from passing STET. However, after 15 days of the publication of advertisement, the Commission issued corrigendum dated 3.7.2009 incorporating therein the decision taken by the State Government to give exemption to the Guest Teachers from passing STET and age relaxation apart from giving additional 6 marks for six months' experience subject to the maximum of 24 marks. The relevant portions of the corrigendum are reproduced below:

"Besides as per the decision of the State Government the guest teachers applying for these posts will be
given exemption from passing the School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) and age relaxation in the upper
age limit in additional weightage for having served the department as guest teacher will be given as under:
"No weightage will given to a person who has served for less than six months.
For the six months experience 6% additional marks to be given and one percent additional will be given for every additional month of engagement subject to maximum 24 marks."

Necessary Stipulation:
In case the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court does not agree to the grant of relaxation to the guest teachers, the same will not be given to them at the time of final selection."

Respondent no. 2, viz., Ashok Kumar challenged the corrigendum in Writ Petition No. 13045 of 2009 mainly on the ground that the so-called policy decision taken by the State Government to
exempt the Teachers engaged as Guest Faculty from passing STET and grant of weightage of additional marks is ultra vires the provisions of the Haryana State Educational Lecturer School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (for short, 'the Rules') and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because that would amount to indirect regularisation of the services of the Teachers who were engaged as the Guest Faculty.

In the counter filed by the State Government the exemption granted to the Guest Faculty from clearing the STET was justified on the premise that such test had not been conducted in
the State for many years. The grant of weightage of additional marks was also defended on the premise that the members of the Guest Faculty had acquired sufficient experience by working as Lecturers / Teachers.

The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the policy framed by the State Government to recruitment to Guest Faculty, the relevant provisions of the Rules, the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 2743/2006, 387/2007 and 5289/2007 filed byTeachers appointed as the Guest Faculty and observed:

"31. A reading of orders passed by this Court, as referred to above, makes it very clear that entry of
guest faculty teachers was de-hors the regular   selection process. It was limited to few candidates.
All eligible candidates were not allowed to compete for those posts. The nature of service was contractual.
However, despite knowing terms and conditions of their  appointment, the guest faculty teachers dragged the
State of Haryana into avoidable litigation and on account of their action, even the process of selection
of regular teachers was delayed. If at this stage, relaxation in age, exemption from passing STET and
weightage upto 24 marks towards experience gained as guest faculty teachers is given to them, it would
amount to appointing those very candidates in regular service, who, in the first instance, entered it through
a selection process which was not regular and open to all. Obviously, it would mean a grave discrimination to
the other more deserving candidates. Most of the guest faculty teachers have service of more than two years to their credit, they are sure to get 24 marks at the time of selection and by that process they are bound to
exclude others who are more meritorious from entering in service. The grant of 24 marks in the marks obtained by all the candidates, including the guest faculty teachers, as per criteria, in a fiercely competitive
field with thousands of applicants would virtually rule out non guest faculty candidates. This virtually
amounts to regularization of guest faculty teachers in service, which was deprecated and proscribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), wherein it was held that persons, who got employment
without following a regular procedure and at times enter through backdoor are not entitled to get
permanence in service."

We have heard Shri Shish Pal Laler, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, learned counsel for the Commission and learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and scrutinised the record.
It is not in dispute that the essential qualifications enumerated in the advertisement issued by the Commission were in consonance with the requirement of the Rules as amended vide Notification dated 24.7.2008
In other words, the certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test was an integral
part of the essential qualifications. Rule 17 of the Rules does empower the State Government to relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons but the exercise of power under that rule is hedged with the condition that while granting relaxation, the State Government must record reasons for doing so.
Before the High Court, the State Government did not produce any document to show that it had exercised power under Rule 17 and passed a reasoned order for granting exemption to the
Teachers engaged as the Guest Faculty from the requirement of having qualified STET. Even before this Court, no such document has been produced. Therefore, the High Court was right in taking the view that the essential qualification prescribed under the rules could not have been relaxed by issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued by the Commission.

Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment in K.V.Rajalakshmiah Setty and another vs. State of Mysore and another (1967) 2 SCR 70 to show that one time ad hoc concession
given to teachers could be treated as legitimate and the exercise of power by the Government does not result in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

We have carefully gone through the judgment but do not find any proposition of legality that a qualification prescribed under the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be relaxed simply by issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued by the Commission.

Insofar as the grant of weightage of additional marks is concerned, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that this was an indirect methodology adopted by the State to ensure regularisation of the Guest Faculty Teachers who had earlier failed to convince the High Court to issue a mandamus to the State Government to frame a policy for regularisation of their services.

In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the special leave petitions,

all other pending I.As. are disposed of as having become infructuous.

(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master

Source : http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%202975510p.txt

Supreme Court of India - Service Matter

Supreme Court of India

Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008

Bench: K Balakrishnan, J Panchal

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 490 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Hemani Malhotra

RESPONDENT:

High Court of Delhi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/2008

BENCH:

CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & J.M. PANCHAL

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.491 OF 2007

Vineeta Goyal Petitioner

Versus

High Court of Delhi Respondent

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1. These petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein the common prayer made, is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to direct the respondent i.e. the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to amend notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi to the effect that the petitioner of each petition, is also declared as selected for being recommended for appointment to the vacant post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and prepare a combined merit list on the basis of total marks obtained in written examination as well as proportionate marks of the interview, as if, the vive- voce test was of 75 marks instead of 750 marks or by adding marks obtained in written examination and the marks given to the petitioner in the interview out of 750 marks without cut off.

2. In order to resolve the controversy raised by the petitioners in the petitions it would be advantageous to refer to certain basic facts.

3. The respondent i.e. the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through Registrar General issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for 16 vacant posts to be filled up by direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Detailed information was given in the instructions annexed with the Application Form. The relevant particulars stated in the advertisement were as under:- Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination shall be a two stage selection process comprising the following:

(a) There shall be a written examination comprising of one paper only of 250 marks. It shall have two parts. Part I shall be objective and Part II shall be descriptive. Syllabus for written examination shall comprise General Knowledge, Current Affairs, English Language and topics on Constitution of India, Evidence Act, Limitation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code, Contract Act, Partnership Act, Principles governing Arbitration Law, Specific Relief Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Transfer or Property Act and Negotiable Instrument Act.

(b) Interview/Viva-Voce.

Minimum qualifying marks in the written

examination shall be 55% for General Candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.

4. The petitioner of each petition submitted application in the prescribed form. They were allotted relevant Roll Nos. A written examination was conducted on March 12, 2006 wherein the petitioners appeared. The written examination was of three hours duration and comprised both multiple questions as well as questions with descriptive answers. The respondent High Court did not declare the result of the written examination at all. However, the petitioners received letter dated June 14, 2006 from the respondent asking them to appear for interview on July 12, 2006. Since the result of the written examination conducted by the respondent was not declared, no merit list of the successful candidates who passed the written test was displayed and therefore it is the case of the petitioners that they were not in a position to find out details about the number of candidates who were declared successful in the written examination or for that matter, the number of candidates who had qualified for viva- voce test. According to the petitioners, the Registrar General of Delhi High Court verified testimonials and other documents submitted by them and informed them that the interview had been deferred and that the next date would be intimated in due course. What is averred by the petitioners is that the respondent issued letter dated September 4, 2006 directing the petitioners to appear for interview on September 20, 2006 at 2.30 P.M., but on September 19, 2006 another letter was issued intimating the petitioners that the interview fixed on September 20, 2006 was deferred. It may be mentioned that no next date of interview was intimated to the petitioners. The respondent High Court issued letter dated November 9, 2006 intimating the petitioners that the interview was fixed on November 29, 2006, but again on November 28, 2006, another letter was issued intimating the petitioners that the interview fixed November 29, 2006 was deferred. This last letter of November 28, 2006 specified that the interviews were to take place on December 7, 2006. According to the petitioners on December 7, 2006 five candidates who had cleared written test gathered in the Office of Registrar General of Delhi High Court for appearing at viva- voce test and all the five candidates were collectively called in a Chamber by the Selection Committee comprising five Hon ble Judges of Delhi High Court to be informed that the interview had been postponed. Meanwhile, the Selection Commettee met and resolved that as it was desirable to prescribe minimum marks for the viva-voce the matter be placed before the Full Court. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Court for considering the question whether minimum marks should be prescribed for vive-voce test. The Full Court, in its meeting held on December 13, 2006, resolved as under:-

Considered. It was resolved that for recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service from Bar, the minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce will be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Candidates .

The respondent High Court thereafter issued letter dated January 17, 2007 intimating the petitioners that the vive-voce was fixed on January 23, 2007, but on January 22, 2007 another letter was issued intimating that the interview fixed on January 23, 2007 was postponed. Again by letter dated February 2, 2007 the petitioners were intimated that they were required to appear for interview on February 5, 2007, but even on that day also, no interview could be held.

5. The respondent High Court issued letter dated February 23, 2007 fixing the oral interview on February 27, 2007 and on that day viva- voce test was finally conducted by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the Registrar (Vig.) issued a notice dated April 10, 2007 mentioning that only three candidates were selected and the petitioners had not been selected. This notice was posted on the web-site of Delhi High Court. What is claimed by the petitioners is that the Selection Committee had not drawn final merit list on the basis of combined result of written examination and interview because if the merit list had been drawn on this basis, the petitioners would have obtained fourth or fifth position in the final merit list as only five candidates had qualified for the viva- voce test, and no cut-off marks were prescribed for viva- voce test. The petitioners claim that they filed an application under Right to Information Act before the Public Information Officer of High Court of Delhi on April 28, 2007 seeking information about the result etc. of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination 2006. According to the petitioners the Public Information Officer of the High Court did not supply most of the information demanded by them on the pretext of confidentiality, but in reply dated June 20, 2007 only a part of the information was given to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 490 if 2007 that out of 250 marks for which written test was conducted, she had secured 141 marks and 363 marks out of 750 marks for which viva- voce test, was conducted. The petitioner in Writ Petition Civil No. 491 of 2007 was informed by intimation dated June 20, 2007 that she had obtained 153.50 marks out of 250 marks for which written test was conducted and 316 marks out of 750 marks for which viva- voce test was conducted. What is maintained by the petitioners is that the petitioners have been excluded from being considered for appointment to the post of Higher Judicial Services exclusively on the basis of cut off marks prescribed at the stage of viva- voce test, which is illegal and contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777. According to the petitioners what weightage should be attached to written test and interview depends upon the requirement of service for which selection is being made, but minimum cut off marks could not have been prescribed for viva- voce test, after process for selection had commenced. It is stressed that the oral interview was the only criteria adopted by the respondent for selection to the posts in question which is illegal and therefore the notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by the Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi should be directed to be amended to include names of the petitioners also as selected candidates for appointment to the posts in question. Under the circumstances the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and claimed the reliefs to which reference is made earlier.

6. On service of notice, Mr. Ramesh Chand, Deputy Registrar, Delhi High Court has filed reply affidavit controverting the averments made in the petition. In the reply it is stated that the writ petitions filed against prescription of minimum percentage of marks for qualifying at the viva- voce test, is not maintainable and therefore should be dismissed. It is mentioned in the reply that as far as selection made in the year 2000 was concerned, a candidate was required to get minimum of 55% marks if he belonged to the General Category and 50% marks if he belonged to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category for passing the vive-voce test and as the petitioners who belong to the General Category did not secure the minimum marks stipulated for the vive-voce, but failed, their names were not recommended for appointment. It is mentioned in the reply that another advertisement dated May 19, 2007 was issued for recruitment to the vacant posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service wherein the petitioners had appeared but failed and therefore also they are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petitions. What is pointed out in the reply is that a candidate is required to secure the stipulated minimum marks in the written examination in order to qualify for the next stage i.e. vive-voce test and therefore the respondent was justified in prescribing cut off marks at the vive-voce test. By filing the reply the respondent has demanded dismissal of the petitions.

7. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the petitions.

8. From the record of the case it is evident that the public advertisement was issued by the respondent for direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Services. As per the said advertisement written examination was to be held on March 12, 2006. The selection process was of two stages: stage one was written examination comprising one paper only of 250 marks, whereas stage two included interview/vive-voce. As per the advertisement minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were specified to be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates but no cut off marks were prescribed for vive-voce test at all. The averments made in the petitions which are not effectively controverted by the respondent would indicate that oral interview was postponed by the respondent on six occasions and was finally conducted by the Selection Committee only on February 27, 2007. However, before that date criteria of cut off marks for vive-voce test was introduced by the respondent. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut off marks for vive-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration of the Court is whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. This Court notices that in Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 2008 filed by K.Manjusree against the State of A.P. & Anr. decided on February 15, 2008, the question posed for consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was considered and answered in the following terms:-

The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview.

9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.

10. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree (Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K.Manjusree (Supra) the Court noticed the decisions in (1) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K.Manjusree (Supra) can neither be regarded as Judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the Larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision.

11. At this stage this Court notices that as per the information supplied by the respondent to the petitioners under the provisions of Right to Information Act, the petitioner in Writ Petition Civil No. 490/2007 had secured 142 marks out of 250 prescribed for the written test and 363 marks out of 750 marks in vive-voce test, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 491/2007 had secured 153.50 marks out of 250 marks in the written test and 316 marks out of 750 marks in vive-voce test. There is no manner of doubt that the prescription of 750 marks for vive-voce test is on higher side. This Court further notices that Hon ble Justice Shetty Commission has recommended in its Report that The vive- voce test should be in a thorough and scientific manner and it should be taken anything between 25 to 30 minutes for each candidate. What is recommended by the Commission is that the vive-voce test shall carry 50 marks and there shall be no cut off marks in vive-voce test. This Court notices that in All- India Judges Association and ors. V. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247, subject to the various modifications indicated in the said decision, the other recommendations of the Shetty Commission (supra) were accepted by this Court. It means that prescription of cut off marks at vive-voce test by the respondent was not in accordance with the decision of this Court. It is an admitted position that both the petitioners had cleared written examination and therefore after adding marks obtained by them in the written examination to the marks obtained in the vive-voce test, the result of the petitioners should have been declared. As noticed earlier 16 vacant posts were notified to be filled up and only five candidates had cleared the written test. Therefore, if the marks obtained by the petitioners at vive-voce test had been added to the marks obtained by them in the written test then the names of the petitioners would have found place in the merit list prepared by the respondent. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions filed by the petitioners will have to be accepted in part.

12. For the foregoing reasons both the petitions succeed. The respondent is directed to add the marks obtained by the petitioners in the written examination to the marks obtained by them in the vive-voce test and prepare a combined merit list along with the other selected candidates. The respondent is directed to amend the notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by the Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi, New Delhi and declare the petitioners as selected for being recommended for appointment to the post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service. It is clarified that the petitioners would neither be entitled to, seniority or salary with retrospective effect. Their seniority shall be reckoned from the date of their appointment and salary as allowable be paid from that date only. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each petition. There shall be no order as to cost.

Source : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1357349/

Monday, September 17, 2012

Teachers' eligibility test (TET) students end 11-day fast

RANCHI: The successful candidates of teachers' eligibility test (TET) held in July 2011 whose appointments were cancelled by the Jharkhand high court in November 2011 ended their 11-day fast on Saturday after HRD minister Baidyanath Ram met them and assured them of a solution.

The successful candidates of the examination were demonstrating at Birsa Chowk since August 28, when the monsoon session of the assembly started. Out of the total number of people demonstrating, six were fasting and three of them had to be hospitalized

Chiarperson of Jharkhand TET Successful Candidates Association, Kunda Mandal said, "We have been selected in the TET examination but we were not given appointment letters due to the mistake of the department. It is not our fault if the state does not have a TET regulation. Then why should we, who have worked hard to pass, suffer?"

After the results of TET examination were declared, the unsuccessful candidates filed a petition in the Jharkhand high court claiming that the examination conducted was unfair, following which the high court cancelled the appointment of the 8042 successful candidates.

After the students went on fast for 11 days, Ram finally met them on Saturday and asked them to break their fast. Ram convinced the candidates that he will look into the matter and come up with a solution soon. "We will take legal help and try to find out a way to give these candidates their job," said Ram

News Source : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-10/ranchi/33736525_1_tet-examination-eligibility-test-successful-candidates / Times of India (10.09.2012)

*****************************8
In so many states of India , TET Candidates Vs Jobs is a problem.
TET exam is conducted according to NCTE guideline to implement RTE to maintain quality in education.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

UPTET : टीईटी अब अगले साल

UPTET : टीईटी अब अगले साल

UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI News

http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#ixzz38ra4C549

इलाहाबाद (एसएनबी)। शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) इस साल की जगह अब अगले साल के जून-जुलाई माह में कराये जाने की संभावना है। शासन परीक्षा कराने को लेकर गंभीर नहीं है। परीक्षा कराने वाली सरकारी संस्था सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी कार्यालय में भी टीईटी परीक्षा को लेकर सन्नाटा पसरा हुआ है। उधर, टीईटी परीक्षा न होने से प्रदेश के करीब 15 लाख अभ्यर्थी परेशान हैं। वे सचिव परीक्षा नियामक कार्यालय और यूपी बोर्ड मुख्यालय का चक्कर लगा रहे हैं। यूपी बोर्ड ने 2010-11 में टीईटी परीक्षा तैयारी पूरी न होने से टली परीक्षा परीक्षा की तैयारियों में लगेगा तीन से चार माह का समय

करायी थी। इसके बाद विवाद हो गया था। ऐसे में इस बार प्रदेश सरकार किसी भी प्रकार के विवाद से बचना चाहती है। इसलिए वह टीईटी परीक्षा सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी (इलाहाबाद) से कराने का निर्णय लिया है। उधर, सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी के पास अपना एक अदद भवन तक नहीं है। वैसे प्रदेश सरकार नई बिल्डिंग बनाने के लिए बजट आवंटित कर दिया है। कुल मिलाकर संभावना यह है कि अगले साल मार्च-अप्रैल माह में टीईटी परीक्षा के लिए आवेदन पत्र जारी हो सकते हैं और परीक्षा जून और जुलाई में हो सकती है।

फार्म तो दो भरना पड़ेगा

इलाहाबाद। टीईटी परीक्षा के लिए दो फार्म भरना ही पड़ेगा। पहला फार्म प्राथमिक और दूसरा फार्म जूनियर हाईस्कूल के लिए होगा। प्रदेश सरकार फीस में छूट देने पर गंभीरता से विचार कर रही है। इससे मध्यम वर्ग के लाखों अभ्यर्थियों को राहत मिलेगी। बीटीसी-बीएड पास होंगे अभ्यर्थी इलाहाबाद। इस बार टीईटी परीक्षा में अफरा-तफरी का माहौल नहीं रहेगा। जो अभ्यर्थी बीटीसी या बीएड की परीक्षा पास कर चुके हैं,वे ही इसमें शामिल हो सकेंगे। शासन के सूत्रों का कहना है कि पिछली बार बीटीसी-बीएड सहित अन्य लोगों के शामिल होने से अफरा-तफरी फैल गयी थी जिससे यूपी बोर्ड को परीक्षा कराने में कई बार दिक्कतें उठानी पड़ी थी।

News Source : http://rashtriyasahara.samaylive.com (Lucknow , 16.9.12)
******************************
It can be a good news for UPTET 2011 candidates. But can be a bad news for UPTET 2011 failed candidates and for new B Ed Appearing.

UPTET : Merit Result in Gunank System (Filled by Candidates Yesterday)

Merit Result in Gunank System (Filled by Candidates Yesterday) -
http://www.editgrid.com/user/uptet/uptet_%282%29

LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP : राजकीय एलटी पुरुष शिक्षकों की भर्ती का रास्ता खुला

LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP :

राजकीय एलटी पुरुष शिक्षकों की भर्ती का रास्ता खुला

वाराणसी। राजकीय विद्यालयों में पुरुष एलटी शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों पर भर्ती का मार्ग प्रशस्त हो गया है। वाराणसी मंडल के चार जिलों के राजकीय विद्यालयों में 40 शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति होनी है। हालांकि इसके बाद भी 21 पद रिक्त रह जाएंगे। कारण कुल 61 पद रिक्त हैं, पर साल भर पहले भेजे गए अधियाचन के मुताबिक ही शासन स्तर से नियुक्ति का आदेश जारी हुआ है।
उत्तर प्रदेश - उत्तराखंड बंटवारे के बाद से लंबित नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया को अब जा कर जीवन मिला है। इसके तहत वाराणसी मंडल के वाराणसी, गाजीपुर, जौनपुर और चंदौली के राजकीय विद्यालयों में रिक्त पदों के लिए अगले सप्ताह संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक (जेडी) स्तर से विज्ञापन निकाला जाएगा। उसके तहत जेडी को ही आवेदन भेजना होगा। यहीं से मेरिट पर नियुक्ति होगी। जेडी ओंकार शुक्ला ने बताया कि मेरिट के लिए तय गुणांक के तहत हाईस्कूल के कु ल पास प्रतिशत गुणे एक बटा 10, इंटर के कुल उत्तीर्ण प्रतिशत गुण दो बटा 10, स्नातक में उत्तीर्ण प्रतिशत गुणे चार बटा 10, बीएड में प्रथम श्रेणी पाने वाले अभ्यर्थी को 12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी वाले को छह अंक, तृतीय श्रेणी वाले को तीन अंक मिलेंगे। इसी तरह जिसने स्नातकोत्तर प्रथम श्रेणी में उत्तीर्ण किया है उसे 15 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी वाले को 10 अंक और तृतीय श्रेणी वाले को पांच अंक मिलेंगे

News Source : Amar Ujala (16.9.12)
*************************
Atleast recruitment process should start in UP, So that unemployed can be engaged in jobs.

UPTET : बीएड परसेंटेज को नहीं मिलेगा अधिक वेटेज

•हाईस्कूल, इंटर व स्नातक के अंक प्रतिशत होंगे ज्यादा अहम

लखनऊ। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के स्कूलों में शिक्षक की भर्ती इस बार नए फार्मूले पर की जाएगी। इसमें हाईस्कूल, इंटरमीडिएट और स्नातक के अंक प्रतिशत को अधिक वेटेज दिया जाएगा पर बीएड के परसेंटेज को अधिक वेटेज नहीं मिलेगा। बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने नया फार्मूला हाईकोर्ट में भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया है और वहां कहा है कि शिक्षकों की भर्ती इस बार इस नए फार्मूले के आधार पर ही की जाएगी। अभी तक शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए हाईस्कूल, इंटर, स्नातक और बीएड में मिले प्राप्तांकों को जोड़कर सीधे मेरिट बनाकर की जाती रही है।
यूपी में इस बार शिक्षक भर्ती प्रक्रिया के लिए टीईटी पास होने वाला ही पात्र माना गया है। राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) ने यूपी में 31 मार्च 2014 तक शिक्षकों की भर्ती की अनुमति दे दी है। यूपी में इस बार नए फार्मूले के तहत शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए मेरिट बनाई जाएगी। हाईस्कूल के कुल प्रतिशत का 10 अंक, इंटर के कुल प्रतिशत का 20 व स्नातक का 40 अंक और बीएड में प्रथम श्रेणी या उससे ऊपर पर थ्यौरी व प्रैक्टिकल का 12-12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी या इससे ऊपर होने पर 6-6 और तृतीय श्रेणी या उससे ऊपर पर 3-3 अंक जोड़ा जाएगा। यदि हाईस्कूल में किसी अभ्यर्थी को 60 प्रतिशत नंबर मिले हैं तो मेरिट में इसका 10वां हिस्सा 6 अंक जोड़ा जाएगा। इसी तरह इंटर में 60 प्रतिशत नंबर मिले हैं, तो 20 प्रतिशत के हिसाब से 12 अंक और स्नातक में 60 फीसदी नवंबर मिले हैं तो 40 प्रतिशत से गुणा करके 24 अंक दिया देते हुए मेरिट निर्धारित की जाएगी। बीएड का केवल प्रथम श्रेणी होने पर 12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी होन पर 6 और तृतीय श्रेणी होने पर 3 अंक ही जोड़े जाएंगे। यूपी में इसके पहले सीधे-सीधे प्रतिशत को जोड़कर मेरिट का निर्धारण किया जाता था। इसके चलते पूर्वांचल या फिर पश्चिमी यूपी के काफी संख्या में अभ्यर्थी नौकरी पाने में सफल हो जाते थे, क्योंकि पूर्वांचल और पश्चिमी यूपी के विवि बीएड में थ्यौरी और प्रैक्टिल में अधिक नंबर देते हैं। लखनऊ विवि और अवध विश्वविद्यालय से बीएड करने वालों को अधिक अंक नहीं मिलते हैं। इसलिए नई व्यवस्था लागू की जा रही है।

News Source : http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20120916a_005163014&ileft=129&itop=357&zoomRatio=130&AN=20120916a_005163014 / Amar Ujala (16.9.12)
****************************************
News Analysis : As their is difference in B Ed marks in different,different universities. Similarly difference in Board exam marks and therefore IIT Kanpur oppose it. And after this a formula was prepared where
UP Board cutoff 65% made equivalent to CBSE 78%.
INSPIRE Internship gave different cut off for different boards, See - http://www.inspire-dst.gov.in/Internship_Guidelines_Science_Camps.pdf

Percentage Cut-off Marks# of Various State-Boards Result in class XII for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
	2008	2009	2010	2011
UP Board	69.2	72.6	77	77
CBSE	91	92.4	91.8	93.2
ICSE	93	93.3	93.2	93.43