/* remove this */

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Allahabad High Court Large Bench Constituted for Another Minority School LT Grade Teacher Recruitment Case

Allahabad High Court Large Bench Constituted for  Minority School LT Grade Teacher Recruitment Case

It is about Minority Institution Right , Individual Right and Right of State about enforcing rules/mechanism on
Minority Institution -


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved on 15/3/2013
Delivered on 26/4/2013

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56673 of 2009
Petitioner :- C/M Swami Lila Shah Adarsh Sindhi Inter College & Anr
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- K.P. Shukla,Anurag Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.N.Sharma

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J)
This Division Bench has been constituted by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 24/11/2009, to answer the following three questions framed by one of us (A.P. Sahi,J).
1. Whether the institution claiming itself to be a minority institution and acknowledged as such by the State Government is entitled to not to consider the claim of promotion of teachers of the primary section of Intermediate Colleges claiming promotion under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 whereby 25% quota is reserved in their favour, on the ground that it offends Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the law laid down in the case of M.B. Lal Vs District Inspector of Schools case (supra) and in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Kund Kund Jain Inter College, Muzaffarnagar Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in [2006 (3) E.S.C. 1528 (All)] requires reconsideration in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra case Vs State of Gujrat & others with Civil Appeal Nos. 7624-7625/04 decided on 20.10.2009.

3. Whether the provisions relating to promotion in respect of teachers of Intermediate College can be treated to be regulatory in nature, keeping in view, the law laid down in the case of Management Committee of M.M. Inter College, Chandpur, District Bijnor Vs Deputy Director of Education, IIIrd Region, Bereilly and others reported in 1984 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C., page 271, and they do not offend Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

Brief facts of the case which necessitated this reference are: 
Swami Lila Shah Adarsh Sindhi Inter College, Charbagh, Shahganj, Agra, is a recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, "hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1921". The institution is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government up to High School. The institution has been recognized as minority institution vide Government Order dated 09/6/2004. There are 8 vacancies of L.T. Grade teacher in the institution. The Committee of Management vide letter dated 14/11/2007, requested the District Inspector of Schools, Agra to accord permission to fill up vacant posts of L.T. Grade teachers.
The District Inspector of Schools, vide letter dated 21/11/2007, raised certain queries. Petitioners claim to have replied the querries. The institution issued an advertisement in the Newspaper "Dainik Jagran" dated 25/7/2009, inviting applications for filling up Eight posts of L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher by direct recruitment. The District Inspector of Schools, raised an objection on 27/8/2009, informing the institution that according to the Government Order dated 25/11/2005, the Assistant Teachers working in the primary institution are entitled for promotion to the extent of 25% promotion quota and the proceedings initiated by the Committee of Management for direct recruitment is contrary to the said Government Order. The Committee of Management replied the said letter informing that the institution is a minority institution which is empowered to recruit the teachers in the institution. The District Inspector of Schools, subsequently passed an order on 19/10/2009, asking the Committee of Management to desist from holding the interview for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers scheduled to take place on 20/10/2009. The petitioners' which is a Committee of Management of the Institution has filed this writ petition praying for following reliefs: 
"a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition). 
b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the District Inspector of Schools, Agra not to interfere in the selection process of L.T. grade teacher initiated by the Committee of Management of Committee of Management of Swami Lila Shah Adarsh Sindhi Inter College, Charbagh, Shahganj, Agra. 
c) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 
d) award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners." 

When writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge on 29/10/2009, the learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Committee of Management, Sri. Kund- Kund Jain Inter College, Muzaffarnagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2006 (3) E.S.C 1528 (All). Learned Standing Counsel had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, (2010) 1 SCC 133.
The petitioners claim in the writ petition that they have a right to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers which right is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench judgment dated 31/8/1984, passed in Writ Petition No.9776/1984, N.B. Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools, & Ors, was also noticed by the learned Single Judge, which had occasion to consider the Regulation 5 of Chapter II framed under the Act, 1921. The Division Bench had taken the view that Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Act, 1921 having been not specifically made applicable to the minority institution, the teachers cannot claim any right for promotion.
Learned Single Judge has also noticed the judgment of this Court in Management Committee of M.M. Inter College, Chandpur, District Bijnor Vs. Deputy Director of Education,IIIrd Region, Bareilly & Ors, 1984 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C, 271, in which a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken the view that the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 being regulatory in nature shall also be applicable on the minority institution. In view of the above submissions and contrary view taken by the different judgments of this Court, three questions as noted above have been referred.

We have heard Shri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Alok Dwivedi has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel has appeared for the State respondents.
Shri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the institution being the minority institution, the Committee of Management has right to make selection on the post of teachers of the institution and the teachers of the primary institution have no right to claim promotion against the 25% quota. He submitted that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in N.B. Lal's case (supra) is clearly applicable on the facts of the present case. He submitted that the Division Bench in N.B. Lal's case (supra) has held that the provisions of Regulation 5 of Chapter II which required 40% posts of L.T. Grade Teachers to be filled up by promotion from C.T. Grade is not applicable to the minority institution. He submits that the same analogy applies to the issue raised in the present case and the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction and authority to stop the Management from proceeding to fill up all the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers by direct recruitment. He has further placed reliance on another judgment of the learned Single Judge in Committee of Management, Shri Kund Kund Jain Inter College, (supra) where the learned Single Judge of this Court has following the judgment of Division Bench in N.B. Lal's case (supra) has held that in a minority institution teachers cannot claim promotion.
Learned counsel for the petitioners apart from placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in N.B. Lal's case (supra) and judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Shri Kund Kund Jain Inter College, (supra) has placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Yunis Ali Sha Vs. Mohamed Abdul Kalam, 1999 (3) SCC 676 and N.Ammad Vs. Manager, Emjay High School & Ors 1999, LLJ Supplement 3, 1470, Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, AIR 2004, SC 3358, Secy., Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose & Ors, (2007) 1 SCC 386 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Sindhi Education Society & Anr. Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2010 (8) SCC 49.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Alok Dwivedi appearing for the respondents refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that requirement of promoting 25% teachers of primary institution to L.T. Grade post is a measure providing for service conditions of teachers which advances the good administration in the institution and in no manner violates the rights of the minority institution. It is submitted that the State is fully empowered to make regulations in the institution receiving aid from the State Government and no exception can be taken to the regulations which are regulatory in nature and does not offend any right of Committee of Management. It is submitted that right to affect promotion is still with the Committee of Management and the right to make selection is not impaired by the regulation.
Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Beenish Jalal Vs. Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region & Ors, 2010 (6) ADJ, 849 and Committee of Management, National Inter College & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2012 (6) ADJ, 741.
Before we proceed to consider the rival submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is useful to note the statutory scheme of the Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder.
Act, 1921, was enacted for the establishment of a Board of High School and Intermediate Education for regulating and supervising the system of the High School of Uttar Pradesh. The provisions of the Act, 1921 were amended by U.P. Act No.26 of 1975.
Section 16-FF was inserted which provided for constituting Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. Section 16-FF is quoted below:
"16-FF. Savings as to minority institutions.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:
Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-
(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an institution, be an expert selected by the Committee of Management from a panel of experts prepared by the Director;
(b) in the case of appointment of a teacher, be the Head of the Institution concerned.
(2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-
(a) in the case of the Head of Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education; and
(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.
(4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible.
(5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the date of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of teacher.
(6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub-section (5) shall be final."

Section 16-FF sub-clause (4) uses the phrase "person selected possesses minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible". The word "prescribed" has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, 1921 as "( c ) "Prescribed" means prescribed by Regulations".
Minimum qualifications for appointment of Head of the Institution and Teachers has been prescribed in Chapter II Regulation 1, thus Chapter II Regulation 1 has to be read for finding out the minimum qualifications prescribed.
Chapter II contains various provisions for appointment of teachers, filling up of temporary vacancies, seniority of teachers, promotion and the procedure for holding selection.
Regulation 17 provides for procedure for filling up the vacancy of the head of the institution and teachers by direct recruitment in any recognised institution referred to in Section 16-FF. Thus, Regulation 17, is a procedure prescribed for the recruitment of teachers of the minority institution.
Regulation 17, sub-clause (a) provides "after the management has determined the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment, the posts shall be advertised by the manager." The use of the words "the management has determined the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment" itself indicate the exercise by the management as to how much posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and to how much posts are to be filled up by promotion. The aforesaid Regulation thus indicates that the posts are also to be filled up by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. Had the legislature intended that all the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment, the wordings of Regulation 17(a) would have been not in the above manner. The provisions of the Act, 1921 and the Regulations apply to the minority institution, and wherever some special provisions or procedures in variance with general provisions is required to be mentioned the same has been mentioned in the Regulations.
In Chapter III of the Regulations, there are several provisions pertaining to other service conditions of the employee which have to be applied to the teachers of the non minority institution as well as of the minority institution, although there is no specific reference in the regulations that they shall apply to the minority institution or not apply to the minority institution, for example, Regulation 46 provides that employees shall be allowed the scale of pay sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. The scale of pay sanctioned by the State Government has to be paid to the teachers of the minority institution as well as of the non-minority institution, although there is no indication in the said regulations that they are specifically applicable to the minority institution. It is useful to quote Regulations 46 to 50 of Chapter III which are as follows:
"46. Employees shall be allowed the scale of pay sanctioned by the State Government from time to time.
47. The pay of an employee on his first joining service in an institution shall be fixed at the initial stage of the time-scale attaching to his post:
Provided that if he has served previously in another institution and earned increments, he may be given the benefit of such increments under conditions laid down by Government or the regulations:
Provided further that advance increments may be allowed in special cases with the prior approval of Government.
48. A promotion to a higher post and the initial pay of an employee will be fixed at the minimum of the new scale if his pay is less than his minimum otherwise at the stage of the new time-scale next above his pay.
49. The Committee will pay the salary of an employee for a month by the 15th day of the following month.
50.The payment of salary will be made in cash or by cheque. If an employee desires regular payment to be made by cheque instead of in cash necessary arrangements shall be made by the Committee, provided banking facilities are locally available. On receiving his salary by cheque or in cash, the employee shall sign the acquaintance roll duly stamped (if necessary), in token of such payment."
Article 30 of the Constitution provides all minorities, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30 of the Constitution had been the subject mater of discussion and interpretation before the Apex Court in several judgments beginning from the Constitution Bench judgment in Re:Kerala Education Bill AIR 1958 SC 956.
A Nine Judges' Bench in The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers Society & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, (1974) 1 SCC 717, had occasion to consider the ambit and scope of Article 30 of the Constitution. It is useful to quote paragraph 30 of the said judgment where the Apex Court held that in the right of administration, checks and balances in the shape of regulatory measures are required to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their conditions of service. It was held that the right to administer is to be tempered with regulatory measures to facilitate smooth administration. Following was laid down in paragraph 30:
"30. Educational institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of human intelligence are mastered and harmonized by education. Where there is complete harmony between the teacher and the taught, where the teacher imparts and the student receives, where there is complete dedication of the teacher and the taught in learning, where there is discipline: between the teacher and the taught, where both are worshipers of learning, no discord or challenge will arise. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the, common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. It is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is an important part in educational institutions. The, qualifications and the character of the teachers are really important. The minority institutions have the right to administer institutions. This right implies the obligation and duty of the minority institutions, to render the very best to the students. In the right of administration, checks and balances in the shape of regulatory measures are required to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their conditions of service. The right to administer is to be tempered with regulatory measures to facilitate smooth administration. The best administration will reveal no trace or colour of minority. A minority institution should shine in exemplary eclectic in the administration of the institution. The best compliment that can be paid to a minority institution is that it does not rest on or Proclaim its minority character."

Yunis Ali Sha (supra) was a case where the Apex Court held that the Managing Committee of the institution was entitled to terminate the services of the teachers without obtaining prior approval of the Director or Inspector of Schools. There cannot be any quarrel to the proposition as laid down in the said case.
In N. Ammad (supra), it was claimed that the senior most available person cannot claim appointment as a Head Master as per Rule 44 (1) of Kerala Education Rules. The Apex Court held that the post of Principal of a College is a pivotal post in the institution and the Management has right to choose a qualified person as a Head Master of the School which right is well protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In the said case following was laid down in paragraphs 28 and 29:
"28. Thus the management's right to choose a qualified person as the Headmaster of the school is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and conditions of service for the post. Any such statutory or executive fiat would be violative of the fundamental right enshrined in the aforesaid Article and would hence be void.
29. In the present case, nobody has alleged that 4th respondent does not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Headmaster. If that is the position, management has the right and freedom to appoint him as the Headmaster of the school whether it is by brining him down from another school or even from outside the State. We therefore concur with the conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned Judgment and dismiss these appeals."

The Eleven Judges Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2002 (8) SCC 481, had again occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the said case has framed various questions. One of the question 5(c) which is relevant in the present case was also framed. It is useful to quote paragraphs 136, 137 and also paragraph 161 in which the Answer to question 5(c) is given, which are as under:
"136. Decisions of this Court have held that the right to administer does not include the right to maladminister. It has also been held that the right to administer is not absolute, but must be subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institutions as the vehicle of education, consistent with national interest. General laws of the land applicable to all persons have been held to be applicable to the minority institutions also -- for example, laws relating to taxation, sanitation, social welfare, economic regulation, public order and morality.
137. It follows from the aforesaid decisions that even though the words of Article 30(1) are unqualified, this Court has held that at least certain other laws of the land pertaining to health, morality and standards of education apply. The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1).
161. The essence of secularism in India is the recognition and preservation of the different types of people, with diverse languages and different beliefs, and placing them together so as to form a whole and united India. Articles 29 and 30 do not more than seek to preserve the differences that exist, and at the same time, unite the people to form one strong nation.

ANSWERS TO ELEVEN QUESTIONS:
Q.1. ...............
Q.2. ...............
Q.3..................
Q.4 .................
Q5(a)................
Q5(b)................
Q5(c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and principal including their service conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities?
A. So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration are concerned, in case of an unaided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as the conditions of affiliation to an university or board have to be complied with, but in the mater of day-to- day management like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency. However, a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself.
For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and unaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or termination from service, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunals could be presided over by a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge.
The State or other controlling authorities, however, can always prescribe the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher or a principal of any educational institution.
Regulations can be framed governing service conditions for teaching and other staff for whom aid is provided by the state, without interfering with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff.
Fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee."

The next judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners is the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors (supra), in which following was laid down in paragraph 7.
"7.But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. It is categorically stated in T M A Pai (cited supra at page 551, paragraph 72) that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. The State can very well provide the basic qualification for teachers. Under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has laid down qualifications to a teaching post in a University by passing Regulations. As per this Regulations UGC conducts National Educational Testing (NET) for determining teaching eligibility of candidates. UGC has also authorized accredited States to conduct State Level Eligibility Test (SLET). Only a person who has qualified NET or SLET will be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an aided institution. This is the required basic qualification of a teacher. Petitioner's right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of its choice among the NET/SLET qualified candidates."

In Islamic Academy of Education & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, (2003) 6 SCC, 697, a Five Judges Bench had again considered the issue of Article 30 of the Constitution and the Apex Court had occasion to consider the exception of regulatory measure which can be enforced against a minority institution. Paragraphs 121, 122 and 123 which are relevant is quoted below:
"121. The right to administer does not amount to the right to maladminister and the right is not free from regulation. The regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. The regulatory measures can be laid down by the State in the administration of minority institutions.
Extent of Regulations :
122. Article 30(1) of the Constitution does not confer an absolute right. The exercise of such right is subject to permissible State regulations with an eye on preventing maladministration. Broadly stated there are "permissible regulations" and "impermissible regulations".
123. Some of the permissible regulations/restrictions governing enjoyment of Article 30(1) of the Constitution are:
(i) Guidelines for the efficiency and excellence of educational standards (See Sidhajbhai v. State of Gujarat; State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial, (1970) 2 SCC 2079; All Saints High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, :
(ii) Regulations ensuring the security of the services of the teachers or other employees [see Re Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. (supra) ;
(iii) Introduction of an outside authority or controlling voice in the matter of service conditions of employees (See All Saints High School v. Government of A.P.);
(iv) Framing Rules and Regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers and employees and their pay and allowances (See State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial (supra) and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. (supra).
(v) Appointing a high official with authority and guidance to oversee, that Rules regarding conditions of service are not violated, but, however such an authority should not be given blanket, uncanalised and arbitrary powers (See All Saints High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra);
(vi) Prescribing courses of study or syllabi or the nature of books (see State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial (supra) and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P).
(vii) Regulation in the interest of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health sanitation, morality, public order and the like (see Sidhajbahi v. State of Gujarat (supra)]"

Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sindhi Education Society & Anr Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 49. The Apex Court in the said judgment had also laid down that regulations could relate to guidelines for the efficiency and excellence of educational standards, ensuring the security of the services of the teachers or other employees. It is useful to extract following observations made in paragraphs 94, 97 and 111:
"94.It is also equally true that the right to administer does not amount to the right to maladminister and the right is not free from regulations. The regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. The regulatory measures can be laid down by the State in the administration of minority institutions. The right of the State is to be exercised primarily to prevent maladministration and such regulations are permissible regulations. These regulations could relate to guidelines for the efficiency and excellence of educational standards, ensuring the security of the services of the teachers or other employees, framing rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers and employees and their pay and allowances and prescribing course of study or syllabi of the nature of books etc. Some of the impermissible regulations are refusal to affiliation without sufficient reasons, such conditions as would completely destroy the autonomous status of the educational institution, by introduction of outside authority either directly or through its nominees in the governing body or the managing committee of minority institution to conduct its affairs etc. These have been illustrated by this Court in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial [1970) 2 SCC 417, All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 478] and T.M.A. Pai's case (supra).
97. It is not necessary for us to examine the extent of power to make regulations, which can be enforced against linguistic minority institutions, as we have already discussed the same in the earlier part of the judgment. No doubt, right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to ensure equality with the majority but, at the same time, what protection is available to them and what right is granted to them under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be diluted or impaired on the pretext of framing of regulations in exercise of its statutory powers by the State. The permissible regulations, as afore-indicated, can always be framed and where there is a maladministration or even where a minority linguistic or religious school is being run against the public or national interest, appropriate steps can be taken by the authorities including closure but in accordance with law. The minimum qualifications, experience, other criteria for making appointments etc are the matters which will fall squarely within the power of the State to frame regulations but power to veto or command that a particular person or class of persons ought to be appointed to the school failing which the grant-in-aid will be withdrawn, will apparently be a subject which would be arbitrary and unenforceable.
111. A linguistic minority has constitution and character of its own. A provision of law or a Circular, which would be enforced against the general class, may not be enforceable with the same rigors against the minority institution, particularly where it relates to establishment and management of the school. It has been held that founders of the minority institution have faith and confidence in their own committee or body consisting of the persons selected by them. Thus, they could choose their managing committee as well as they have a right to choose its teachers. Minority institutions have some kind of autonomy in their administration. This would entail the right to administer effectively and to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. There is a fine distinction between a restriction on the right of administration and a regulation prescribing the manner of administration. What should be prevented is the maladministration. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and content of the minority institutions, similarly, regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration."

The judgment of the Apex Court in Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College (supra) has also been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the said case, the provision of Section 57(3) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 came up for consideration which provided that the post of Principal when vacant is to be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The said provision was challenged that it offends the right of the institution to make appointment on the post of Principal. In the said case, the Apex Court had taken note of its earlier judgments explaining the scope and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution and laid down that regulatory measures can be provided by the State regulating the service conditions of the employees without interfering with the overall administration and control of the Management over the staff. Following was laid down in paragraphs 19 and 21:
"19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational institution by minorities may be summarized thus:
(i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights :
a) To choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution;
b) To appoint teaching staff (Teachers/Lecturers and Head-masters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff; and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees;
c) To admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure;
d) To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution;
(ii) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the minorities in a more advantageous position vis-a-vis the majority. There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The general laws of the land relating to national interest, national security, social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also.
(iii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. Nor does it include the right to maladminister. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1).
(iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will have the freedom to appoint teachers/Lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of selection.
(v) Extention of aid by the State, does not alter the nature and character of the minority educational institution. Conditions can be imposed by the State to ensure proper utilization of the aid, without however diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1).
21. We may also recapitulate the extent of regulation by the State, permissible in respect of employees of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified and crystalised in T.M.A. Pai. The State can prescribe:
(i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments,
(ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the Management over the staff.
(iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees,
(iv) the conditions for the proper utilisation of the aid by the educational institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions, and grant of aid, will apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the Management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions."

On the question as to whether Section 57 (3) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 interferes with the right of the management, referring to its several earlier judgments the Court held that the management is entitled to appoint the person, who according to them is most suited to head the institution, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the posts. Following was laid down in paragraphs 28 and 29:
"28. The appellant contends that the protection extended by Article 30(1) cannot be used against a member of the teaching staff who belongs to the same minority community. It is contended that a minority institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same community, senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice. But this contention ignores the position that the right of the minority to select a Principal of its choice is with reference to the assessment of the person's outlook and philosophy and ability to implement its objects. The management is entitled to appoint the person, who according to them is most suited, to head the institution, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the posts. The career advancement prospects of the teaching staff, even those belonging to the same community, should have to yield to the right of the management under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions.
29. Section 57(3) of the Act provides that the post of Principal when filled by promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Section 57(3) trammels the right of the management to take note of merit of the candidate, or the outlook and philosophy of the candidate which will determine whether he is supportive of the objects of the institution. Such a provision clearly interferes with the right of the minority management to have a person of their choice as head of the institution and thus violates Article 30(1). Section 57(3) of the Act cannot therefore apply to minority run educational institutions even if they are aided."

The last judgment which needs consideration and which has been referred to is the Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra (supra). In the said case, the institution was receiving 100% government grant. The question arose as to whether the prior approval from the State Government/competent authority required as per the Government Circular before appointment of a candidate is infringement of right under Article 30 of the Constitution. The circular was upheld holding that the said does not offend the right of minority under Article 30 of the Constitution. Following was laid down in paragraph 7:
"7. From the reading of aforementioned para 3, it is clear that all that the Government wants to examine is as to whether the proposed appointments were within the frame work of the rules considering the workload and the availability of the post in that institution and, secondly; whether the selected candidates had the necessary qualifications for the subjects in which the said teachers were appointed. The same applies to the non-teaching staff also."
In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the abovenoted cases, it is clear that regulations can be made and applied to a minority institution receiving grant-in-aid by the State Government provided those regulations do not impinge the right of the minorities which are protected under Article 30 of the Constitution. The regulations which are regulatory in nature and advances the efficient administration by the minority institution have been held to be valid. The regulations providing service conditions of the teachers have also been held to be permissible regulations provided they do not interfere with the choice of the management to choose a teacher who fulfills the qualification.
In the present case, the question is as to whether the provision providing of filling of 25% of the post by promotion of teachers working in the primary institution impinge upon the rights of the candidates under Article 30 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to fill up all the posts by direct recruitment and filling up the post by direct recruitment is a part of the right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
We are of the view that providing 25% posts to be filled up by promotion of primary teachers of the primary institution is a regulation providing service conditions of the teachers and is a provision providing avenue for promotion to the primary teachers so that they may not stagnate nor they feel frustrated by not getting a career advancement, providing beneficial service conditions to the teachers of the minority institution is with the object of better administration and cannot be said to take away any right of Management. The question as to whether teachers are entitled to be promoted or whether they are fit to be promoted is again in the domain of the Management who is to affect promotion. It cannot be held that the Management has right to make appointment only by direct recruitment on all the posts, permitting the management to make appointment on all the posts by direct recruitment only shall breed discontent in the existing teachers who look forward for such conditions of service which may provide for career advancement so that they may feel contended and give their best to the students.
The Division Bench judgment in N.B. Lal's case (supra) had considered Regulation 5 of Chapter II. The Division Bench in the said case held that the said provision is not applicable to the minority institution since the said provision has not been specifically applied to the minority institution. It is useful to quote the Division Bench judgment which is to the following effect:
"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we find no merit in this petition.
The petition is liable to be dismissed on a short ground. Admittedly the institution of which the petitioner is a teacher is a minority institution. To such an institution the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act do not apply. Neither does Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act apply to such an institution as the same has not been made applicable to a minority institution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the procedure for selection of teachers even of minority institutions has been laid down under Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act, it implies that in regard to the minority institutions also the quota of 40 percent reserved for promotees contemplated under Regulation-5 aforesaid shall be maintained.
We do not agree with this contention. To a minority institution which is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution, such a restriction cannot be read by implication. In our opinion the mere fact that the procedure prescribed for selection is the same or similar to that applicable to other institutions cannot automatically bring in Regulation 5 of Chapter II. This provision not having been specifically applied to minority institution the petitioner cannot base any claim thereon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the right to promotion under Regulation 5 against the 40 percent quota was a condition of the petitioner's services and therefore, Regulation 5 should be deemed to be applicable to minority institutions also. As Regulation 5 does not apply to a minority institution, it cannot be treated as forming part of the petitioner's conditions of service. A minority institution enjoys complete autonomy in respect of selections and appointment of teachers except to the extent specially restricted by the Intermediate Education Act. In the scheme of that Act we find nothing which may have taken away the right of a minority institution to fill in the posts of teachers by direct recruitment regardless of the restrictions imposed as regards the quota of promotees contemplated in Regulation 5.
The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily."
In the above case the Division Bench held that Regulation 5 of Chapter II not to be applicable to minority institution only on the ground that the said regulation has not been made specifically applicable to the minority institution.
We have already noted the scheme of the Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. There are several provisions in the Regulations which have not been specifically made applicable to the minority institution, but they are applicable to the minority institution. In fact, in the Act, 1921 apart from the provisions providing for constitution of the Selection Committee for minority institution there are no other provisions which have been made specifically applicable to the minority institution.

Section 16-G sub-section (1) of the Act, 1921 provides that every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations. Section 16G sub-section (1) is quoted below:
"16-G. Conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees.-(1) Every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee in so far as it is consistent with the provisions of this Act or with the Regulations shall be void."

Regulations have been framed governing service conditions of teachers in Chapter II and III. Under Chapter II where the provisions are not made applicable to the minority institution an exception has been enacted in the provision itself, for example, Chapter II Regulation 2 sub-regulation (1) provides that a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding 6 months or by death, retirement or suspension of an incumbent occurring during an educational session in the post of the Head of Institution shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most qualified teacher. The said provision further clearly indicates that the provision is not applicable to the institution referred to in Section 16-FF.
Regulation II proviso 1 is quoted below:
"2.(1) The post of the Head of Institution shall except as provided in clause (2) be filed by direct recruitment after reference to the Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 16-F or, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) of Section 16-FF:
Provided that in the case of any institution not being an institution referred to in Section 16-FF a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding 6 months or by death, retirement or suspension of an incumbent occurring during an educational session in the post of the Head of Institution shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most qualified teacher, if any, in the highest grade in the institution."
As observed above, Regulation 17 sub-clause (a) uses the phrase "after the management has determined the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment" which clearly inheres an idea that there has to be determination as to how many posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and how many posts are to be filled up by promotion. There is nothing in Regulation 5 Chapter II which provides for promotion to indicate that the provision is not applicable to the minority institution.
The observation of the Division Bench in N.B. Lal's case (supra) that Chapter II Regulation 5 has not been specifically made applicable to the minority institution thus needs a reconsideration since there are several provisions in the Regulations which have not been made applicable specifically to a minority institution, but they are applicable for example Regulations 44 to 48.
The Division Bench in N.B. Lal's case (supra) has not referred to any other reason for not applying Chapter II Regulation 5. We are of the view that the said Division Bench judgment needs reconsideration specially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in its several judgments as noted above that Regulations can be enforced against the minority institutions which relate to the conditions of service and which are beneficial to the teachers and promote excellence.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Committee of Management, Sri Kund Kund Jain Inter College (supra) relies on N.B. Lal's case (supra), we having taken the view that the N.B. Lal's case itself needs reconsideration, the said judgment cannot be said to be lay down good law. The learned Single judge in Management Committee of M.M. Inter College (supra) while considering Regulations 35 to 37 providing for procedure to conduct disciplinary proceedings against a teacher held that the said regulations are regulatory in nature and does not offend Article 30 of the Constitution. Following was laid down in paragraphs 12 and 13:
"12. The question remains still whether the Managing Committee can claim to have acted in accordance with law, despite the failure to observe the provision contained in Regulations 35 to 37, referred to above. Despite the order of the appellate authority being ignored, the dismissal of the respondent no.3 from service may not be upheld until it were to be found that the action taken by the Managing Committee was in conformity with the mandatory requirements of law. The provision contained in Regulations 35 to 37 is designed to carry out the requirement of section 16-G (1)/(2) in so far as these Regulations prescribe the conditions and the procedure under which the punishment may be imposed. Faced with this, Sri Zaidi urged that these Regulations be held ultra vires Article 39 (1) of the Constitution. This argument has merely to be stated and rejected. The regulatory power of the Legislature has been upheld in relation to the educational institutions established and administered by religious and linguistic minorities. The validity of section 51-A(1) (a) of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, which makes provisions for giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against a penalty to be proposed on a member of the staff of an educational institution was held to be valid in the Ahmadabad St. Xavier's College Society and anothers case (supra). The provision therein is that no member of the staff (including a teacher) shall be dismissed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of these charges and until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on any such penalty proposed to be inflicted on him. The provision thus is in pari materia with that contained in Regulations 35, 36 and 37. In paragraph 105 of that case Khanna,J observed:-
Although disciplinary control over the teachers of a minority educational institution would be with the governing council regulations, in my opinion, can be made for ensuring proper conditions of service of the teachers and for securing a fair procedure in the matter of disciplinary action against the teachers. Such provisions which are calculated to safeguard the interest of teachers would result in security of tenure and thus inevitably attract competent persons for the posts of teachers. Such a provision would also eliminate a potential cause of frustration amongst the teachers. Regulations made for this purpose should be considered to be in the interest of minority educational institutions and as such they would not violate Article 30 (1).
13. This was affirmed also in the subsequent decisions in Lily Kurien v. St. Lewina and others (supra): Gandhi Faize-Am College case (supra). The provision contained in Regulations 35 to 37 being regulatory in the character and intended to ensure fairness in procedure incorporating the essential features of natural justice in matters of imposition of punishment may not be regarded as contravening Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Sri Zaidi argued also that there is no authority provided to revise or sit in appeal over the decision arrived at by the Managing Committee. This cannot be made a basis to contend that this Court does not have the power to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where it is found that the Managing Committee has acted illegally and exercised jurisdiction not conferred under the Act."

The judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Beenish Jalal (supra) has taken the view that the prescription of quota for promotion does not infringe the right of the Management to make appointment inasmuch the power to appoint continuous with the Management. Following was laid down in paragraphs 7 and 12:
"7.Posts in aided minorities institutions are created under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 under orders of the Director of Education. It is in respect of these posts alone that the State has taken the responsibility to make payment of salary. The power to frame the regulations flows from Section 9 of Intermediate Education Act. The Regulation 5 which provides for 50% seats to be filled up by way of promotion has been so framed in exercise of statutory powers. Such prescription of quota for promotion does not infringe the right of the Management to make appointment inasmuch as the power to appoint continuous with the Management. Only the matter of selecting the candidates has been restrained for the purpose of appointment through promotion to 50% of total cadre strength.
12.This Court, therefore, hold that the right of minority institution to offer appointment by way of promotion against 50% of the total cadre posts does not infringes the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Challenge made to the validity of Regulation 5 is, therefore, repelled. Since 50% of the posts have already been filed by promotion no relief can be granted.
The writ petition is dismissed."

The Division Bench judgment in Committee of Management, National Inter College and Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2012 (6) ADJ 741, held that the provision for making appointment on compassionate ground of a teacher who dies in harness of a minority institution is a provision providing a better condition of service to the teachers of minority institution and does not infringe the right under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Division Bench judgment in N.B. Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools & Ors., Writ Petition No.9776/1984, decided on 31/8/1984 needs to be referred to a larger Bench to examine as to whether the said judgment lays down the correct law or not.

The following questions need to be referred to be answered by a Full Bench. 
(1) Whether the law laid down in the case of N.B. Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools (supra) that provisions of Chapter II Regulation 5 providing for filling up 50% post by promotion of Assistant Teacher violates the right of minority institution guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. 
(2) Whether the institution claiming itself to be a minority institution and acknowledged as such by the State Government is entitled to not to consider the claim of promotion of teachers of the primary section of Intermediate Colleges claiming promotion under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 whereby 25% quota is reserved in their favour, on the ground that it offends Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 
(3) Whether the provisions relating to promotion in respect of teachers of Intermediate College contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, can be treated to be regulatory in nature, not violative of rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
Let this order be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench for consideration of the questions as framed above. 
Order Date :-26.4.2013 
SB


Court No. 9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56673 of 2009
C/M, Swami Lila Shah Adarsh Sindhi Inter College, Charbagh, Shahganj, Agra & Another
Vs.
State of U.P. & Others
*****

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.


(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)


I entirely agree with the issues framed and the reasons in support thereof for referring the matter to a larger bench as reasoned out by my esteemed colleague Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan. However, I would humbly further add to the reasons in support of the reference keeping in view the intricate involvement of the issue of interplay of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Whether a teacher, employed for teaching Primary and Junior Classes in an Intermediate College, governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and recognized as a minority institution, can seek promotion in the next higher grade under the 25% promotion quota envisaged by the Government Order dated 25.11.2005, is the doubt that is to be resolved through a further reference to a larger bench.
The background in which this problem is posed for a discussion can be better understood with reference to the provisions for promotion of teachers under the 1921 Act. At the outset it would be appropriate to clearly point out that there is a separate provision for appointment of teachers in a minority institution. The Section is 16-FF coupled with the Regulation 17 framed for the said purpose. These provisions do not make any recital about promotion or a quota meant for the same. On the other hand, Regulation 5 of Chapter II provides for 50% promotion quota to be filled up accordingly from amongst eligible teachers which of course does not draw any distinction between minority and non-minority institutions. This provision has also been engrafted in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 which at present covers the field. The minority institutions are however totally exempt from the applicability of the 1982 Act. Thus, so far as minority institutions are concerned, they continue to be governed by the Act of 1921.

The present case arises out of a claim by teachers of the institution which professes itself to be an institution established and administered by the "Sindhi" minority community. The said status has been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the teachers on the ground that the status is founded on the strength of a Government Order dated 9.6.2004 which has been annulled in relation to another institution which decision is reported in 2006 (8) ADJ Pg. 109 C/M Inter College Dharaon, Chandauli Vs. State. A special appeal no. 903 of 2006 against the same has also been dismissed. We are however not entering into this question as it is neither a point of reference nor has the government order in relation to this institution been challenged. It is however undisputed between the parties that the institution is receiving full grant-in-aid from State funds for payment of salary against sanctioned posts, which includes the promotional posts in question.

The legal tangle emanates on account of a somewhat limited view expressed by a division bench in the case of N.B. Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, writ petition no. 9776 of 1984 decided on 31.8.1984. The claim of a teacher to get promoted in a higher grade in a minority institution was repelled on the ground that the provisions of Chapter II Regulation 5 as it then existed providing for 40% promotion quota did not apply to minority institutions which are exempted under the 1921 Act. It was held that there are separate provisions for minority institution to which such quota does not apply. Thus in the absence of any legislative intent, it was held that such a claim has to be negatived and the petition was accordingly dismissed. This decision has been followed in the case of C/M Kund Kund Jain Inter College Vs. State reported in 2006 (3) ESC Pg. 1528. According to these pronouncements, the restriction on appointments through direct recruitment in minority institution by way of a promotion quota do not apply. There is however a detailed discussion in the case of C/M Kund Kund Jain (supra) on the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

In the aforesaid backdrop, the same logic on the basis of the ratio of the abovementioned decisions, is pressed into service in the present case which involves the claim of promotion, though under a different provision of the government order dated 25.11.2005. It is not necessary at this stage to entail the procedure of promotion under 25% quota of the abovementioned G.O., as the moot question is as to whether the right of the management of a State aided minority institution is in any way impinged violating Article 30 of the Constitution of India by enforcing the provisions of promotion of a teacher from a lower to higher grade in the same institution.

Having perused the referring order and the decisions cited at the bar as well as the judgments mentioned above, it appears that the issue requires a reconsideration. This is also evident from the subsequent decisions of the apex court that have been relied on by Sri Shukla learned counsel for the management, Sri Dwivedi for the aggrieved teachers and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

To make a provision for the promotion of a teacher to a higher grade in the same institution, which is State aided, can be treated to be regulatory without encroaching upon the right of the management to make an appointment of its own choice. The teacher, who is seeking promotion is within the same institution and his appointment as such did not offend Article 30 of the Constitution when he was inducted into the cadres of the institution. The management has a right to promote a teacher provided he is fit and eligible to be promoted. The teacher has a right to be considered but the ultimate authority to appoint is with the management. The management has the right to assess the fitness of a candidate for promotion which means fitness in all respects as indicated in the apex court decision in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 698.

This right to choose is not taken away from the management if the zone of consideration is limited to the teachers already appointed and available in the same institution. If their initial appointment did not offend the rights of the management, who chose them to be appointed, then it does not stand to any reason or rationale as to why the management cannot reconsider them at the time of promotion. As an illustration, a teacher teaching a particular subject, gets promoted and continues to teach the same subject in higher classes, the same by any logic does not affect the right of the minority or its status in any way. The decisions of the apex court as referred to in C/M Kund Kund Jain case (supra) are in relation to the Head of the Institution with which we are not concerned in this reference. This is not a dispute of promotion to the post of the Head of the Institution. The said decisions stand on a different footing as the appointment of the Head of the Institution also entails a large number of supervisory and administrative responsibilities.

The provision for promotion therefore regulates the appointment that does not restrict the right to appoint. The question is about the presence of a legislative intent to that effect. Any procedure that is not prohibited expressly cannot be said to be inapplicable unless it offends the statute or any fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. There is no such prohibition expressed or implied under the 1921 Act. The procedure being regulatory and for the benefit of teachers cannot offend Article 30 as has been held in a large number of decisions and explained clearly in the case of Secretary Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and others, 2007 (1) SCC Pg. 386. The latest decision in the case of Sindhi Education Society and another Vs. The Chief Secretary of Govt. of NCT Delhi and others, 2010 (8) SCC Pg. 49 also clarifies that regulatory measures can be enforced by the State including service conditions to secure the rights of employees. The imposition of a rule to appoint a class of persons or a particular person was only found to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The view expressed by a learned Single Judge in relation to regulations under the 1921 Act were held to be regulatory and not offending Article 30 of the Constitution reported in 1984 (1) U.P. L.B.E.C. Pg. 271 C/M M.M. Inter College Vs. Deputy Director of Education and others. A learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Beenish Jalal Vs. Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region and others reported in 2010 (6) ADJ Pg. 849 has taken a view that runs counter to N.B. Lal's case, but without noticing it.

There is yet another aspect on the constitutional plane that has to be gone into and which is the fundamental question relating to the defence taken by the management of the institution. An employee under the general rules of service jurisprudence has a right to be considered for promotion which has been acknowledged as a fundamental right protected under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference be had to the decision in the case of Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209, paragraphs 22, 24 to 27. Promotion is a consideration for occupying a higher post as per rules on the basis of the qualifications so prescribed. The concept of promotion comes into picture only if a person has entered into a cadre strength of the organization. What is promotion has been explained by the apex court in the case of A.K. Subraman and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1975) 1 SCC 319, paragraph 22. If the right for consideration of promotion is a fundamental right then it has to be further examined as to whether this individual right in any way trenches upon the social protection guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

A full bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of St. Francis De Sales Education Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2002 (1) BOM CR 650, while proceeding to assess these competing rights, one individual and the other in favour of the community at large, came to the conclusion that reservation in a minority institution would be in conflict with the positive fundamental rights and that the rule of reservation cannot be compulsorily enforced in a minority institution as it would violate Article 30 of the Constitution.

The said full bench judgment also in Para 32 held as follows:-

"32. Mr. Bhushan, learned Government Pleader, relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in N. Ammad (supra) and sought to derive a negative proposition therefrom. He contended that in N. Amamd (supra) the Supreme Court has emphasised the right of a headmaster and taken a view that the appointment of a headmaster was an integral part of the power of management of the minority institution. Conversely, he contends that, with regard to other teachers, the situation would not be so. There are two difficulties in accepting the argument of the learned Counsel. In the first place, as observed by Lord Chancellor Halsbury in Qwinn v. Leathem H.L., (I) 1901 495, a judgment in an authority for what it decides and not for any proposition which may flow from it logically. As far as the judgment in N. Ammad (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court was concerned only with the power of appointment of headmaster and not of other teachers. It is, therefore, not possible to accept that the Supreme Court has held in N. Ammad (supra) that with regard to other teachers, the power of appointment was not an integral facet of the guaranteed fundamental right under Article 30(1). Secondly, we are of the view that considering the reason why Article 30(1) has been enacted, the power of appointment of every teacher, from the junior most to the principal/headmaster, must be considered to be an integral facet of the power of administration of a minority institution guaranteed under Article 30(1). In this connection, we may point out that in St. Xaviers College (supra) the Supreme Court was considering a law which interfered with minorities choice of qualified teacher or its disciplinary control over the teachers and other staff and in terms observed that such a law would be void as violative of Article 30(1)."

However, while dealing with the catena of apex court decisions the full bench also in Para 25 summarized the law as follows:-

"25. Thus, we see that right from the Kerala Education Bill (supra) to Sidhrajbhai (supra) to St. Xaviers College (supra) to St. Stephen's College (supra), to N. Ammad (supra) the law has been enumerated to the following effect:-

(a) the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is absolute and not subject to reasonable restrictions as under Article 19.

(b) Notwithstanding the absolute character of the fundamental right under Article 30(1), it is permissible for the State to make regulations in the interest of efficiency, instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like; such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the constitution, but are intended to advance that right.

(c) the right of selection of the head of the minority education institution or teachers therein or the right of admission of students thereto is a facet of right to administer the minority educational institution. Consequently, any restriction thereupon would impinge on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1)."

The aforesaid pronouncement of the full bench of the Bombay High Court came to be considered by a Division Bench in the case of Hussain Khan Vs. Shah Babu Education Society decided on 26th April, 2006, reported in 2006 (4) BOM CR 726. The said case was a direct case of promotion to the post of Head Master under the rules and the conditions of service that was involved therein. The prayer made was to strike down the offending provisions that restricted the claim of promotion and the division bench was being persuaded to again refer the matter that was decided by the full bench in St. Francis case (supra) to a larger bench. This issue relating to the right to be considered for promotion was agitated by the employee on the ground that if his right of consideration is taken away, the same would offend Article 16 and also Article 14 of the Constitution. The division bench, however, did not find it necessary to refer the matter further as it was of the opinion that this claim of promotion to the post of Head Master would also be covered by the full bench decision and the ratio thereof as extracted hereinabove.

Thus it has to be seen that this conflict between an individual fundamental right and the larger absolute fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 has to be read together in the context of the issue involved as the interplay of such rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution has to be harmonized without creating any constitutional imbalance. 

In view of the nature of the dispute involved herein, what has to be seen is the extent of the regulatory power of the State in such matters. This aspect of competing fundamental rights has also not been traversed in the division bench judgment of N.B. Lal (supra), and therefore, the same also deserves to be adjudicated upon as there are other views available as indicated hereinabove. 

Accordingly, for these additional reasons, the matter requires an authentic pronouncement upon a reconsideration of the view expressed in N.B. Lal's case (supra). 
Date:- 26th April, 2013
Sahu




By The Court 
In view of the above opinions expressed by us, following questions are referred to be answered by a Full Bench. 
(1) Whether the law laid down in the case of N.B. Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools (supra) that provisions of Chapter II Regulation 5 providing for filling up 50% post by promotion of Assistant Teacher violates the right of minority institution guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. 
(2) Whether the institution claiming itself to be a minority institution and acknowledged as such by the State Government is entitled to not to consider the claim of promotion of teachers of the primary section of Intermediate Colleges claiming promotion under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 whereby 25% quota is reserved in their favour, on the ground that it offends Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 
(3) Whether the provisions relating to promotion in respect of teachers of Intermediate College contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, can be treated to be regulatory in nature, not violative of rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 
Let this order be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench for consideration of the questions as framed above. 

(Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J) (Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J) 

Order Date :-26.4.2013
SB




Read more...

UPTET 2013 : Allahabad High Court Decision Regarding Appearing B.Ed / BTC candidates, Suggesting State Govt. to Give them chance to appear in UPTET 2013 if NCTE rules approve it

UPTET 2013 : Allahabad High Court Decision Regarding Appearing B.Ed  / BTC candidates, Suggesting State Govt. to Give them chance to appear in UPTET 2013 if NCTE rules approve it

UPTET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Recruitment News

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26660 of 2013

Petitioner :- Rambabu Vishwakarma And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Apurva Hajela,Ajit Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Yatindra
������������������������ With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25766 of 2013

Petitioner :- Ghyan Sagar Mani Tripathi And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Pradeep Singh Sengar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
������������������������ With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26301 of 2013

Petitioner :- Prashant Sharma And 22 Others
Respondent :- State And 7 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- R.J. Shahi,C.V.S. Raghuvansi
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,P.P. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar
����������������������� With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26262 of 2013

Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Mukul Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.A.Akhtar
������������������������ With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25670 of 2013

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rizwan Ali Akhtar
������������������������ With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26468 of 2013
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Swarup Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
All the petitioners herein raise a common plea that they have finally either appeared in the qualifying examination of training teachers education course or are about to appear and their results are shortly to be declared. They are being prevented from appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test on account of the condition imposed that the application forms of only such candidates shall be accepted who have already passed out their training qualification or have acquired the alternative qualification like B.Ed.�
The contention of all the learned counsel appearing in these cases is to the effect that in the previous year also when the Teacher Eligibility Test was being held in 2011, such a relaxation was provided by the State Government itself allowing those, who were about to complete their training course or whose results had not been declared, to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test. They, therefore, submit that there is no new situation for holding of the examinations and, therefore, the petitioners should be permitted to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test.
Learned counsel's argument is that the Teacher Eligibility Test is a separate requirement which can be gained by any candidate and is not concerned with the� other minimum educational qualification. Thus, a candidate can acquire the training qualification by the time the Teacher Eligibility Test is held. The passing of the TET will not automatically give them a chance for seeking appointment as an Assistant Teacher unless they complete the training qualification. Thus, they can be allowed to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test which is to be held at least once in a year according to the policy laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education but is generally delayed.
The second limb of argument, which has been� forcefully canvassed, is that this prayer is in accordance with the Eligibility Clause No. 5(ii) which is as follows:-
"5 (ii) A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010."
The petitioners, therefore, contend that these guidelines that have been introduced on 11.2.2011 bind the respondent-State Government to allow such candidates who are pursuing any teacher education course, also to appear in the T.E.T. Examination. All the petitioners are also pursuing their teacher education course and, in such circumstances, the said guidelines should also be followed by the State Government.
Sri Upendra Singh had been called upon to obtain instructions in this matter and he contends that, according to the Government Order dated 17.4.2013, under which the T.E.T. Examinations are going to be held, it has been provided that only such candidates can apply who have passed out their B.T.C. training course or otherwise have acquired any other such prescribed qualification. Some instructions in writing have been forwarded by the Examination Regulatory Authority Smt. Neena Srivastava.�
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the contention appears to be that the N.C.T.E. guidelines are binding on the respondent State. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been considered in the communication, which has been sent by the Examination Regulatory Authority.
The T.E.T. is only a qualifying examination as per the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as amended up to date by the State Government. It may, therefore, not be necessary for preparation of inter se merit of candidates seeking appointment. Thus, allowing such candidates to appear in T.E.T would not prejudice any candidate. Secondly, it would save the time of a candidate seeking to acquire such qualification, without compelling him to wait for six months or one year to appear in the same, even if he is to shortly acquire his other qualifications. Thirdly the guidelines issued under Section 35 of 2009 Act have to be observed as they, in no way, are in conflict with, any other provision.
The words "pursuing any of the teacher education course" occurring in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. have been pointed out by Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. To my mind, the same reflects the extension of such a facility to those candidates who have appeared in the final exams of their teacher education course or whose results are awaited at the final stage. This may not be for those who have just taken admission in a teacher education course/training course requiring completion in a year or two. This facility, like in the case of engineering or medical entrance test, where the candidate has already appeared in his 10+2 exams and is awaiting results, and is also eligible to appear in the entrance test is, therefore, to help such candidates who are to finally wrap up their teacher education course.
Thus, the respondents are not to loose anything or prejudice any cause. To the contrary, this would be a correct way of implementing the guidelines of the N.C.T.E.
Accordingly, a certified copy of this order shall be placed by the learned Standing Counsel before the State Government namely Principal Secretary (Basic Education) who shall forthwith convene a meeting in this respect and take notice of the said Eligibility conditions prescribed in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. And issue an appropriate instruction or Government Order in the event it is found that the petitioners are also entitled to appear in the examinations according to the above mentioned guidelines by extending the date for filling up of the application forms accordingly. 
A certified copy of this order shall be provided within 24 hours� to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for being communicated to the said authority for taking appropriate steps within a week. 
All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 
Date:-13.5.2013
Ram Murti�
Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2576836





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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25670 of 2013

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rizwan Ali Akhtar

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Disposed of.�
For order see my detailed order of the date passed in Writ-A No. 26660 of 2013 on the separate sheets.
Order Date :- 13.5.2013
Ram Murti

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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25670 of 2013

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rizwan Ali Akhtar

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The petitioners claim that they have undergone B.T.C. Training Course but their exams have not concluded nor they have been issued certificates.
Even such category of persons are entitled to appear in the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test. For this reliance is placed on Clause 4 of the guidelines issued under the letter dated 11th February, 2011 by the National Council for Teacher Education.
Learned counsel submits that the application form of the petitioners is not being accepted on account of the reason that they are not in possession of certificate of training.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions and clarify this position by Friday next.
Put up on Friday next i.e. on 10.5.2013.
Order Date :- 7.5.2013
Sahu


Read more...

LT Grade Teacher Recruitment in GIC UP - Next Date 20 May 2013

LT Grade Teacher Recruitment in GIC UP  - Next Date 20 May 2013 



Pending
Special Appeal Defective : 405 of 2013 [Banda]
Petitioner: RAVENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA
Respondent: RAVINDRA BABU SHRIWAS AND 5 ORS.
Counsel (Pet.): J.H. KHAN
Counsel (Res.): C.S.C.
Category: Special Appeals Special Appeals-Against Final Order Of Single Judge In Writ Petition
Date of Filing: 15/04/2013
To Be Listed on: 20/05/2013 in Court No. 33

For confirmation, Contact concerned authority /officer.





Read more...

Online Enquiry Form for Amar nath Yaatra


Online Enquiry Form for Amar nath Yaatra





स्यंभू हिमानी शिवलिंग

उल्लेखनीय है कि अमरनाथ गुफा में प्रतिवर्ष प्राकृतिक रूप से हिमलिंग का निर्माण होता है जिसके दर्शन हेतु श्रद्धालुजनों की भीड़ उमड़ पड़ती है। बताया जाता है कि अमरनाथ गुफा के भीतर प्रतिवर्ष आषाढ़ पूर्णिमा के दिन से प्राकृतिक हिमलिंग का निर्माण होना प्रारम्भ हो जाता है जो कि श्रावण पूर्णिमा के दिन अपना पूर्ण आकार ग्रहण कर लेता है। स्वयमेव निर्माण होने के कारण इसे स्वयंभू हिमानी शिवलिंग भी कहा जाता है। हिम से बना यह शिवलिंग वर्षपर्यन्त बने न रह कर कुछ माह में ही पिघल कर समाप्त हो जाता है। आश्चर्य की बात यह है कि यह शिवलिंग बिल्कुल ठोस होता है जबकि इसके आस-पास जमा हुआ बर्फ कच्चा होता है। यही कारण है कि अमरनाथ गुफा में आकर ईश्वर के प्रति आस्था प्रगाढ़ हो जाती है।

अमरनाथ धाम की कथा (Story of Amarnath Dham)

पौराणिक कथाओं में वर्णन है कि एक बार देवी पार्वती के मन में अमर होने की कथा जानने की जिज्ञासा हुई तथा उन्होंने भगवान शंकर से इस कथा को सुनाने का अनुरोध किया। चूँकि अमर होने की कथा अत्यन्त गुप्त है और इस कथा को सामान्य प्राणियों को सुनाने का निषेध है, कथा सुनाने के लिए शिव ऐसे स्थान की खोज में लगे जहां कोई जीव-जन्तु न हो। इसके लिए उन्होंन श्रीनगर स्थित अमरनाथ की गुफा को उपयुक्त पाया। पार्वती जी को कथा सुनाने के लिए इस गुफा में लाते समय शिव जी ने एक स्थान पर माथे से चन्दन उतारा इसलिए उस स्थान का नाम चन्दनबाड़ी हो गया। शिव जी अनन्त नाग में नागों को एवं शेषनाग नामक स्थान पर शेषनाग को ठहरने के लिए आदेश देकर पार्वती सहित अमारनाथ की गुफा में प्रवेश कर गये।

गुफा के भीतर पहुँच कर भगवान शिव माता पार्वती को अमर होने की कथा सुनाने लगे। कथा सुनते-सुनते देवी पार्वती को निद्रा देवी ने घेर लिया और वे सो गईं। शिव जी अमर होने की कथा सुनाते रहे, इस समय दो सफेद कबूतर शिव की कथा सुन रहे थे और बीच-बीच में गूं-गूं की आवाज निकाल रहे थे जिसे शिव जी माता पार्वती की हुँकार समझ रहे थै।. इस प्रकार से दोनों कबूतरों ने अमर होने की पूरी कथा सुन ली।

वास्तविकता ज्ञात होने पर शिव जी कबूतरों पर क्रोधित हुए और उन्हें मारने के लिए तत्पर हुए। इस पर कबूतरों ने शिव जी कहा कि हे प्रभु हमने आपसे अमर होने की कथा सुनी है यदि आप हमें मार देंगे तो अमर होने की यह कथा झूठी हो जाएगी। इस पर शिव जी ने कबूतरों को जीवित छोड़ दिया और उन्हें आशीर्वाद दिया कि तुम सदैव इस स्थान पर शिव पार्वती के प्रतीक चिन्ह के रूप निवास करोगे। माना जाता है कि आज भी इन दोनों कबूतरों का दर्शन भक्तों को यहां प्राप्त होता है।

अमरनाथ गुफा की भौगोलिक स्थिति

अमरनाथ धाम श्रीनगर से लगभग 135 किलोमीटर दूर है. यह स्थान समुद्र तल से 13, 600 फुट की ऊँचाई पर है। ध्यान रखें कि इस स्थान पर ऑक्सीजन की कमी हो जाती है।

अमरनाथ यात्रा हेतु विशेष सावधानी

पंजीयन केवल अधिकृत स्थान अर्थात् जम्मू एण्ड कश्मीर बैंक की शाखा से करवाएँ। नेट में उपलब्ध साइट्स, जिनमें अनेक ठगी करने वाले भी हो सकते हैं, पर निर्भर न रहें।
अस्वस्थ तथा कमजोर व्यक्ति अमरनाथ यात्रा न करें।
यात्रा के दौरान केवल आवश्यक सामग्री ही साथ रखें, अनावश्यक सामान रखकर अपना बोझा न बढ़ाएँ।
गर्म कपड़ों की पर्याप्त व्यवस्था रखें।
सम्पूर्ण यात्रा के दौरान शालीनता का परिचय दें और जरूरतमन्दों की यथायोग्य सहायता करें


Read more...

LPG Cylinder Booking Through Aadhaar Card Registration


LPG Gas Cylinder  Booking Through Aadhaar Card Registration :
एलपीजी सिलेंडर की सब्सिडी के लिए आधार पंजीकृत कराएं

भारत सरकार मई के मध्‍य से देश के 20 जिलों में एलपीजी सिलेंडर के लिए आधार आधारित डायरेक्ट सब्सिडी ट्रांसफर की शुरुआत करने जा रही है। इन जिलों में रहने वाले एलपीजी सिलेंडर उपभोक्ता सब्सिडी पाने के लिए आधार नबंर चार तरह से पंजीकृत करवा सकते हैं।

1. कॉल सेंटर : 18002333555 पर फोन करें और कॉल सेंटर एजेंट से कहें कि आप अपना आधार नबंर देना चाहते हैं। इसके बाद एजेंट द्वारा दिए जाने वाले निर्देशों का पालन करें।

2. वेबसाइट: www.rasf.uidai.gov.in/seeding/User/ResidentSplash.aspx  पर जाएं। यहां पर ‘स्टार्ट नाऊ’ का लिंक दबाएं और सीडिंग प्रक्रिया का पालन करें।

3. व्यक्तिगत : अपने एलपीजी वितरक या डिलीवरीमैन को अपने आधार पत्र की प्रति दें, जिस पर आपका उपभोक्ता नबंर, नाम, पता और मोबाइल नबंर लिखा होना चाहिए।

4. स्पीड पोस्ट : अपने उपभोक्ता नबंर, नाम, पते और मोबाइल नबंर के साथ आधार पत्र की प्रति एलपीजी मार्केटिंग कंपनी के संबंधित कार्यालय के पते पर स्पीड पोस्ट के जरिये भेजें। कार्यालय का पता जानने के लिए
www.indane.co.in, www.ebharatgas.com, www.hpgas.com पर लॉगइन करें।

नोट : यदि आपका एलीपीजी डिलीवरी पता और आपके आधार पत्र पर लिखा गया पता अलग-अलग है, तो आधार नबंर पंजीकृत कराने के लिए व्यक्तिगत या स्पीड पोस्ट के द्वारा ही जानकारी भेजें। आपको साथ में अपने मौजूदा पते की एक प्रति भी देनी होगी



Additional Info -

 देश के बीस जिलों में आधार से एलपीजी को लिंक करने की महत्वाकांक्षी योजना शुरू करने के बाद पेट्रोलियम मंत्रालय ने इससे उत्पन्न होने वाली समस्याओं को लेकर भी तैयारी शुरू कर दी है। उसका कहना है कि यह सही है कि शुरू में कुछ समस्या होगी। इसके लिए मंत्रालय ने संभावित कदम भी साथ-साथ उठाने शुरू कर दिए हैं। इनमें हेल्पलाइन नंबर के साथ ही हर कंपनी से संबंधित शिकायत के लिए एक विशेष ई-मेल बनाने की भी कवायद की जा रही है। अगर किसी भी उपभोक्ता को यह लगता है कि उसे कुछ समस्या है या शिकायत है तो वह देशव्यापी मुफ्त हेल्पलाइन 18002333555 पर फोन कर सकते हैं।


जल्द ही इस उद्देश्य से हर कंपनी का एक विशिष्ट ई-मेल भी जारी किया जाएगा। एक अधिकारी ने कहा कि आधार और एलपीजी को जोड़ने में आने वाली समस्या से निपटने के लिए हर एजेंसी पर विशेष सूचना बोर्ड लगाए जाएंगे। इसमें सवाल-जवाब के रूप में हर शंका का समाधान होगा। संबंधित जिला अधिकारी, आधार नंबर प्राधिकरण के अधिकारी और तेल कंपनियों के अधिकारियों के बीच नियमित बैठक की कवायद भी शुरू कर दी गई है। जिससे ग्राहकों को समस्या न हो। इस अधिकारी ने कहा कि एक बार यह व्यवस्था लागू होने पर इन बीस जिलों में एलपीजी वितरण में अंतिम स्तर का भ्रष्टाचार खत्म होगा। सरकार बचत का पैसा वास्तविक उपयोगी तक पहुंचा पाएगी। इस तरह बचा हुआ पैसा अन्य विकासपरक कार्य में सरकार खर्च कर पाएगी। इस अधिकारी ने कहा कि जनता भी इसमें सहयोग देगी। इसकी वजह यह है कि हर व्यक्ति भ्रष्टाचार खत्म करना चाहता है। चाहे फिर उसे इसके लिए कुछ समस्या भी क्यों न सहनी पड़े। एक अन्य अधिकारी ने कहा कि गैस एजेंसी पर ग्राहकों के लिए आगामी आधार कैंप, उनके स्थान व अन्य जानकारी भी उपलब्ध कराई जाएगी

Read more...

राष्ट्रपति भवन घूमने के लिए ऑनलाइन बुकिंग


राष्ट्रपति भवन घूमने के लिए ऑनलाइन बुकिंग

With effect from 01.01.2013 -
राष्ट्रपति भवन घूमने के लिए ऑनलाइन बुकिंग की जा सकती है। सप्‍ताह के तीन दिन शुक्रवार, शनिवार और रविवार को आम लोग राष्ट्रपति भवन में घूमने जा सकते हैं। सोमवार से गुरुवार और सार्वजनिक अवकाश वाले दिनों में यह सुविधा उपलब्‍ध नहीं होगी। राष्ट्रपति भवन जाने से तीन दिन पहले बुकिंग करनी आवश्यक है।

प्रक्रिया : राष्ट्रपति भवन की वेबसाइट http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ पर लॉगइन करके ऑनलाइन बुकिंग के लिंक पर क्लिक करना होगा। इसके बाद घूमने जाने वाले समूह या स्कूल-कॉलेजों के बारे में यहां पूरी जानकारी देनी होगी। समूह के मुखिया का पासपोर्ट साइज फोटो भी अपलोड करना होगा।

समय : सुबह 9 बजे से शाम 4 बजे तक।

राष्ट्रपति भवन घूमने से संबंधित किसी भी प्रकार की जानकारी 011-23013287, 23015321 एक्सटेंशन 4662 पर फोन या 011-23013189 पर फैक्स करके पाई जा सकती है।
प्रवेश : राष्ट्रपति भवन में गेट नंबर दो (राजपथ) और गेट नंबर 37 (डलहौजी गेट की ओर) से ही होगी।

पहचान पत्र जरूरी : राष्ट्रपति भवन घूमने आने वाले भारतीय लोगों के पास कोई वैध फोटो पहचान पत्र जरूर होना चाहिए। विदेशी नागरिकों को आवेदन के समय पासपोर्ट की फोटो जमा करना होगी और घूमने के लिए आने वाले दिन असली पासपोर्ट अपने साथ लाना होगा।

बुकिंग के अन्य तरीके : reception-officer@rb.nic.in पर ई-मेल या स्वागत कार्यालय, राष्ट्रपति सचिवालय, राष्ट्रपति भवन, नई दिल्ली-110074 पर पत्र भेजकर भी बुकिंग कराई जा सकती है।

नोट : ऑनलाइन बुकिंग राष्ट्रपति भवन की पुष्टि के बाद की पक्की मानी जाएगी। राष्ट्रपति सचिवालय को सुरक्षा कारणों से किसी भी आवेदन को स्वीकारने या नकारने का अधिकार है


Read more...

Know Your Aadhaar Card Status Using - 3 Ways


Know Your Aadhaar Card Status Using - 3 Ways
तीन तरीके से जान सकते हैं आधार का स्‍टेटस

यदि आपको आधार (यूआईडी) का रजिस्‍ट्रेशन कराए हुए काफी समय हो गया है और आधार कार्ड आपके पास तक नहीं पहुंचा है तो इन तीन तरीकों से आधार का स्‍टेटस जान सकते हैं।


एसएमएस से

इसके लिए मोबाइल फोन के मैसेज बॉक्स में जाकर UID STATUS <14 अंकों का ईआईडी>टाइप करके  51969 नंबर पर भेजना होगा। यदि पंजीकृत मोबाइल से एसएमएस किया गया है तो इसके उत्तर में आने वाला एसएमएस दो तरह की जानकारी देगा। पहली यदि आपका आधार नंबर जारी कर दिया गया है तो इसे एसएमएस के जरिये आपको भेज दिया जाएगा। यदि आपका आधार नंबर जारी नहीं हुआ है तो उसकी वर्तमान स्थिति से आपको सूचित किया जाएगा।बिना पंजीकृत मोबाइलसे एसएमएस करने पर आपको सिर्फ वर्तमान स्थिति की जानकारी मिलेगी। 14 अंकों का ईआईडी : नामांकन संख्या ( /के बिना) है जो कि पंजीकरण पावती पर लिखी होती है।

ऑनलाइन
इसके लिए सबसे पहले https://portal.uidai.gov.in/ResidentPortal/statusLink लिंक पर जाना होगा। वहां पर 14 अंकों का ईआईडी और समय के 14 अंकों के जरिये स्‍टेटस जाना जा सकता है। यदि आपका आधार कार्ड बन गया होगा तो यहां पर उसकी जानकारी मिल जाएगी। इसके अलावा यदि कार्ड को आपके दिए हुए पते पर भेजा जा चुका है तो इसके बारे में भी आपको यहीं पर सूचना मिल जाएगी।

फोन से
फोन नंबर 18001801947 के जरिये फोन करके आधार नंबर के बारे में किसी भी प्रकार की जानकारी ली जा सकती है। इस नंबर के जरिये किसी भी भारतीय भाषा में बात की जा सकती है। यह हेल्‍पलाइन सुबह 10 बजे से रात 11 बजे तक काम करती है




Read more...

RTI Online Application Filing System - Website not working


RTI Online Application Filing 

System - Website not working

बड़े बड़े दावे हुए की आर टी आई एप्लीकेशन फाईलिंग को ऑनलाइन कर दिया गया है 
परन्तु जब इस आर टी आई  ऑनलाइन पोर्टल की जांच की गयी तो देखा कि सब खोखली बातें हैं 
जमीनी हकीकत कुछ और है 
आप खुद ही देखे लीजिये - 
http://www.rtionline.gov.in/

When you try to signup here - 
http://www.rtionline.gov.in/registration.php
(You will see problems and unable to signup, So how will you fill Online RTI Application)

कुछ स्वयं सेवी संस्थाओं ने भी आर टी आई एक्टिविस्ट की सहायता के लिए उनकी और से मुफ्त आर टी आई एप्लीकेशन फाईलिंग की सुविधा शुरू की ,

लेकिन जब जांच की गयी तो ऐसी साइट्स पर लिखा आ रहा था की   आर टी आई एप्लीकेशन बहुत ज्यादा संख्या में आ गयी हैं और फिलहाल ये सुविधा बंद कर दी गयी है 

मेरे ख्याल से आर टी आई एक्टिविस्ट की सुरक्षा के लिए सरकार के केन्द्रीय  सूचना आयोग को स्वयं 
गंभीर आर टी आई एप्लीकेशन प्राप्त करनी चाहिए और इसको केन्द्रीय  सूचना आयोग विभाग की और से स्वयं भेजा जाना चाहिए जिससे गंभीर मुद्दों से सम्बंधित आर टी आई एक्टिविस्ट की सूचना गोपनीय रह सके 

एन जी ओ आदि को भी इस तरह की सूचनाये प्राप्त करने में आर टी आई आवेदक (विशेषकर गंभीर मुद्दों से सम्बंधित आर टी आई एक्टिविस्ट ) की सहायता करनी चाहिए 

आर टी आई एप्लीकेशन से सम्बंधित फीस का प्रावधान ऑनलाइन भी हो तो बेहद अच्छा होगा । 






Read more...

UPTET / NCTE : RTI Application to NCTE to know Important Information Regarding Teachers Recruitment


UPTET / NCTE : RTI Application to NCTE to know Important Information Regarding Teachers Recruitment



UPTET Activist Shyam Dev Mishra Ji's RTI Application to NCTE,
And he is going to receive complete reply shortly as he has to pay fee for xerox charges and after that he will receive complete reply of his application.



Dated 15.04.2013

To,

The Public Information Officer,
National Council for Teacher Education HQ. 
Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, 
New Delhi-110002.

Sir,

Subject: Application for seeking Information under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Kindly provide following information point-wise, as sought by the applicant in exercise of the rights conferred by the Right to Information Act, 2005, within stipulated time-limit;

1. Kindly provide the copy of the proposal of the State Government of Uttar pradesh to NCTE, seeking approval for conducting elementary teacher education programme of two years duration (Diploma in Elimentary Education or whatever name, it may have) through open and distance learning mode for training of untrained graduate 'Shiksha Mitra' appointed by the State Government in elementary schools.

2. Kindly provide the copy of the Order dated 14.1.2011 issued by the National Council for Teachers Education, according approval to the proposal of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for conducting elementary teacher education programme of two years duration (Diploma in Elimentary Education or whatever name, it may have) through open and distance learning mode for training of untrained graduate 'Shiksha Mitra' appointed by the State Government in elementary schools.

3. Kindly provide Demand and Supply Estimates of Teachers and Teacher Educators at School Stage (2007-08 – 2016-17) in respect of state of Uttar Pradesh.

4. According to the “Norms and Standards for Bachelor of education programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) degree” laid-down by NCTE, candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme. In case of any proven violation of the same with regard to minimum marks required, what action is prescribed to be taken against the concerned candidate and the institution?

5. Accoring to the “Norms and standards for Diploma in elementary education programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed)” laid-down by NCTE, 

(i) Where one of the eligibility criteria for admission to subject programme is “Two years teaching experience in a Government or Government recognized primary / elementary school.”, whether “the tenure of expressly-declared non-employment-oriented, contractual, community-service engagement for teaching pupils of classes 1 & 2 in government-run primary school” may be considered as “teaching experience in a Government or Government recognized primary / elementary school” for the purpose?

(ii) Where, it is provided that the reservation for SC/ST/OBC and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central Government / State Government, whichever is applicable and there shall be a relaxation of five percent marks in favour of SC/ST/OBC and other categories of candidates, 

(a) Can NCTE or the concerned Government offer/sanction/allow, whichever is applicable, admission to more than sixty-thousand candidates with absolute disregard to such provisions?

(b) In case the admissions to such programme are proved to have been offered/sanctioned/allowed with absolute disregard to the applicable reservation and relaxation as provided by NCTE, whether such admission or consequent award of dimploma shall stand void?

6. According to NCTE’s Notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended by notification dated 29.07.2011, one of the minimum qualification for a person to be eligibile for appointment as a teacher is “Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”.
For the purpose, NCTE issued “Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under the Right of the Children to Free and Compulsary Education Act (RTE), 2009” to states vide its Letter No. 76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.02.2011, specifying therein also the “Structure and Content of TET” in details, which also stipulates that “All questions will be Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), each carrying one mark, with four alternatives out of which one answer will be correct. There will be no negative marking. The examining body should strictly adhere to the structure and content of the TET specified below.”
In this regard, please inform,

(i) Whether a state government is required as per the rules or law, to furnish details before the NCTE and seek prior permission before conduction a Teacher Eligibility Test?

(ii) Whether a state government is allowed to conduct Teacher Eligibility Test in deviation and/or contravention to the Guidelines issued by the NCTE for the perpose?

(iii) Whether the NCTE may grant permission to a particular state government to introduce and conduct in Teacher Eligibility Test, an additional Paper (For Language) with comprehension, essay –writing in place of typical NCTE-prescribed Paper with Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) only?

(iv) Whether a state government, at it’s own discretion, is allowed to introduce and conduct in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) a self-designed Paper (For Language), in addition to and totally different from NCTE-prescribed Paper-I (For Classes I-V) and Paper-II (For Classes VI-VII)? Whether such paper and consequent award of certificate shall be deemed valid by NCTE for the purpose of making a person eligible to be appointed as a teacher, as far as the necessity of passing TET is concerned?

7. Whether NCTE or Central Govt. has permitted certail states to consider the candidature of the persons having Gradution, who have neither undergone nor been enrolled in any NCTE-recognized Teacher Tarining Programme, meant for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class 1-5 and 2, for sitting in respective papers of Teacher Eligibility Test? If yes, kindly provide the copy of letter/circular/ notification/ communiqué, permitting thereby the state government of Uttar Pradesh to this effect.

A postal order of Rs. 10/- bearing No. 278169 dated 02.04.2013 is attached herewith.

Yours sincerely,



Shyam Deo Mishra
Address: NL-1A, Ground Floor, 17/4, 
Sector-10, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai-400706 (Maharashtra) 
*******************************************************
According to Shyam Dev Mishra Ji 

1. In response to my RTI application dated 15.04.2013, NCTE sent me 2 letters dated 9th May and 14th May 2013 and asked me to deposit fees for the information which is spead in almost 500 pages.

2. On 17th May, I visited NCTE office, New Delhi and discussed the matter in length with their Officer, Mr. Siddharth.

3. When I explained the issue of Training to Shikshamitras and its legal aspects, issue of conducting a new kind of TET, designed by UP Govt itself, issue of not allowing B.Ed. Candidates for UPTET-2013 (Class 1-5), he expressed serious concern over the issue and assured me to consider it seriously and take necessary steps if I could submit in-writing complaint supported by relevant documents and evidences.

4. With a view to facilitate me , he assured me to share their records and entire file related to UPTET and SM-training including the 200+-paged Proposal sent by UP govt for such training and its sanction by NCTE, so that I can get complete information and point out misleading information and illegality therein, if any.

5. As their entire team was busy in preparation for their important meeting on 24th May, they have invited me on any day in last week of May 2013, so that their staff can spare enough time with me and help me find necessary information and documents.

6. Next week, I will be there again to find out the factual and legal status of the action and stand of UP Govt on the issues, raised in my application.

My sincere appreciation for NCTE RTI Cell for their concern and cooperation. Let's see what follows..

All the friends will be updated timely


Read more...

Saturday, May 18, 2013

UPTET : शिक्षकों के पौने तीन लाख पद खाली


UPTET : शिक्षकों के पौने तीन लाख पद खाली

UPTET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Recruitment News

 लखनऊ : सूबे में परिषदीय स्कूलों में शिक्षकों के तकरीबन पौने तीन लाख पद खाली हैं 

जिनमें से 58 हजार से अधिक पद उच्च प्राथमिक स्कूलों के विज्ञान और गणित विषयों के शिक्षकों के हैं

प्रदेश में बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद से संचालित 1.14 लाख प्राथमिक और 45 हजार उच्च प्राथमिक स्कूलों में 1.85 करोड़ बच्चे नामांकित हैं। शिक्षा के अधिकार अधिनियम के मुताबिक प्राथमिक कक्षाओं में शिक्षक-छात्र अनुपात 1:30 और उच्च प्राथमिक कक्षाओं में 1:35 होना चाहिए लेकिन

 परिषदीय स्कूलों में तैनात 1.72 लाख शिक्षामित्रों को शामिल करने के बाद भी मौजूदा शिक्षक-छात्र अनुपात 1:39 है।

125 हजार करोड़ रुपये खर्च 
वित्तीय वर्ष 2013-15 के बजट में बेसिक शिक्षा के लिए 21,520 करोड़ रुपये का बजट आवंटित किया गया था
 इसके अलावा सर्व शिक्षा अभियान के तहत लगभग 4000 करोड़ रुपये केंद्रांश के रूप में मिलेंगे। इस भारी-भरकम धनराशि का बड़ा हिस्सा शिक्षकों के वेतन पर खर्च होगा।

मूल्यांकन कराये सर्व शिक्षा अभियान1प्रदेश के शैक्षिक परिदृश्य को लंबे समय से करीब से देखने वाले पूर्व शिक्षा निदेशक एलपी पांडेय बेसिक शिक्षा के हालात को उत्साहजनक नहीं मानते। वह कहते हैं कि सर्व शिक्षा अभियान को परिषदीय स्कूलों में गुणवत्तापरक शिक्षा का हाल जानने के लिए एक स्वतंत्र एजेंसी से अध्ययन कराना चाहिए। तभी सरकरी स्कूलों में शिक्षा की सही तस्वीर सामने आयेगी। उनके मुताबिक कक्षा शिक्षण जितना अच्छा और प्रभावी होगा।1समन्वित प्रयास से होगा शैक्षिक सुधार1प्रमुख सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा सुनील कुमार मानते हैं कि सबको शिक्षा मुहैया कराने की कोशिश में अब तक अवस्थापना सुविधाएं मुहैया कराना विभाग की प्राथमिकता थी। किन्हीं कारणों से शिक्षा की गुणवत्ता पर समुचित ध्यान नहीं दिया गया। शिक्षा की गुणवत्ता के लिए शिक्षा से जुड़े सभी पक्षकारों को समन्वित प्रयास करना होगा


News Source / Sabhaar : जागरण (18.5.13)


Read more...

UPMSSCB / UP TGT / PGT Recruitment : टीजीटी-पीजीटी व प्रधानाचार्य के रिक्त तीन हजार पदों का विज्ञापन शीघ्र


UPMSSCB / UP TGT  / PGT Recruitment : टीजीटी-पीजीटी व प्रधानाचार्य के रिक्त तीन हजार पदों का विज्ञापन शीघ्र 


इलाहाबाद। उत्तर प्रदेश माध्यमिक शिक्षा सेवा चयन बोर्ड टीजीटी, पीजीटी और प्रधानाचायरे के रिक्त करीब तीन हजार पदों पर नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया शुरू करने जा रहा है। इसके लिए माह के अन्तिम हफ्तें में विज्ञापन जारी करने जा रहा है। जिससे कि अभ्यर्थी संबंधित पदों के लिए समय रहते आवेदन कर सके। माध्यमिक शिक्षा सेवा चयन बोर्ड के सूत्रों ने बताया कि शासन के निर्देश पर प्रदेश के सभी सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक विद्यालय 30 जून 2014 तक टीजीटी, पीजीटी और प्रधानाचायरे के रिक्त होने वाले पदों का अधियाचन दें जिससे कि समय रहते विज्ञापित करके उन पदों पर नियुक्ति की जा सके और शिक्षण कार्य प्रभावित न होने पाये



Read more...

DAV Public School - Teacher Recruitment Advertisement

DAV Public School - Teacher Recruitment Advertisement





Read more...

CTET  : Know Your Form Status Online

सीटीईटी फॉर्म का स्टेटस ऑनलाइन जानें 

सेंट्रल टीचर एलिजेबिलिटी टेस्ट (सीटीईटी) के लिए आवेदन किया है, लेकिन पता नहीं चल रहा कि फॉर्म स्वीकृत हुआ है या नहीं तो इसे जानने के लिए चक्कर नहीं काटने पड़ेंगे। घर बैठे ही एक क्लिक पर उन्हें इस बात की जानकारी प्राप्त हो जाएगी कि फॉर्म की स्थिति क्या है। सीबीएसई ने सीटीईटी में आवेदनकर्ताओं को ऑनलाइन स्टेटस पता लगाने की सुविधा प्रदान की है। यदि उम्मीदवार को अपने फॉर्म का स्टेटस उपलब्ध न हो तो वह 31 मई तक सीबीएसई से संपर्क कर सकता है।
सीबीएसई ने शिक्षकों के पात्रता मानदंड के लिए 28 जुलाई को सीटीईटी लेने जा रहा है। इसके लिए आवेदन प्रक्रिया 29 अप्रैल को समाप्त हो चुकी है। ऑनलाइन स्टेटस जानने के लिए उम्मीदवारों को सीबीएसई की वेबसाइट पर जाकर सीटीईटी के आइकन में एप्लिकेशन स्टेटस के विकल्प पर जाना होगा। जिसके बाद वहां पर उम्मीदवार को पंजीकरण नंबर को भरना होगा।
इस जानकारी के बाद लॉग इन पर क्लिक करते ही फॉर्म की पूर्ण स्थिति सामने आए जाएगी




Read more...

UP News : प्रमुख सचिव शिक्षा का गिरफ्तारी वारंट


UP News : प्रमुख सचिव शिक्षा का गिरफ्तारी वारंट
सीजेएम ने अनिल संत को कोर्ट में पेश करने को कहा
डीजीपी दो हफ्ते में करें आदेशों का पालन

Warrant issued to Arrest UP Secretary Anil Sant 

अवमानना मामले में सीजेएम ने कई अफसरों को पेश करने के दिए आदेश


लखनऊ (ब्यूरो)। हाईकोर्ट के आदेशों का पालन न करने को लेकर दायर अवमानना याचिका में बार-बार कोर्ट में बुलाने पर उपस्थित न होने के कारण सीजेएम प्रमोद कुमार त्यागी ने कई अफसरों को गिरफ्तार कर कोर्ट में पेश करने का आदेश दिया है। हाईकोर्ट के निर्देश पर सीजेएम ने कुंदन लाल के मामले में शिक्षा विभाग के प्रमुख सचिव अनिल संत के खिलाफ गिरफ्तारी वारंट जारी करते हुए 25 मई को कोर्ट में पेश करने को कहा है।
सीजेएम ने नोवा इंस्टीट्यूट व नवीन कुमार के मामले में एलडीए के अधिशासी अभियंता आरएन सिंह व नजूल अधिकारी नंदलाल सिंह को गिरफ्तार करके 25 मई को कोर्ट में पेश करने का आदेश जारी किया है। हाईकोर्ट में मामले की सुनवाई 29 मई को होगी। सीजेएम ने त्रिलोचन सिंह के मामले में अतिरिक्त कृषि निदेशक (प्रशासन) तथा श्यामा देवी की याचिका पर बाल विकास पुष्टाहार के निदेशक देवेंद्र कुमार वर्मा के खिलाफ 27 मई का गिरफ्तारी वारंट जारी किया है। श्यामा देवी मामले की सुनवाई 30 मई तथा त्रिलोचन मामले की सुनवाई 31 मई को हाईकोर्ट में होगी।
सीजेएम ने अमरेश शुक्ला के मामले में फैजाबाद की सिविल लाइन स्थित सेंट्रल बैंक के मुख्य प्रबंधक अभिताभ गुप्ता तथा हजरतगंज स्थित क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय के प्रशासनिक अधिकारी एससी भयाना को गिरफ्तार करके 27 को पेश करने का आदेश जारी किया है।
पंकज कुमार के मामले में सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया हजरतगंज के शाखा प्रबंधक एचएस बरार तथा नरीमन प्वाइंट मुंबई के जनरल मैनेजर (एचआरडी) एपी शुक्ला को 25 मई को गिरफ्तार करके कोर्ट में पेश करने का आदेश दिया गया है।


News Source / Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (18.5.2013)
Read more...

UP Teacher / Headmaster Promotion : सूची में खुलने लगा गड़बड़ियों का पिटारा


UP Teacher / Headmaster Promotion  : सूची में खुलने लगा गड़बड़ियों का पिटारा

•आपत्ति दर्ज नहीं करा पा रहे हैं शिक्षक
•ब्लाक संसाधन केंद्रों पर चस्पा नहीं हुई है शिक्षकों की वरिष्ठता सूची

मऊ। जिले के परिषदीय उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में प्रधानाध्यापक पद पर पदोन्नति के लिए विभाग की ओर से तैयार कराई गई वरिष्ठता सूची में तमाम गड़बड़ियों का पिटारा खुलने लगा है। शासन की ओर से शिक्षकों को पदोन्नति देने के लिए वरिष्ठता सूची जारी कर इस पर 20 मई तक आपत्तियां ली जानी थी, लेकिन विभागीय लापरवाही के चलते खंड शिक्षा अधिकारी कार्यालयों पर सूची ही चस्पा नहीं की जा सकी है। इससे दूर दराज इलाके में तैनात शिक्षक सूची मेें त्रुटि की जानकारी न होने से आपत्ति तक दर्ज नहीं करा पा रहे हैं।
जिले में 1029 प्राथमिक तथा 442 उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय हैं। जिले के दर्जनों उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय प्रधानाध्यापक विहीन चल रहे हैं। ऐसे में छात्रों को गुणवत्तापरक शिक्षा नहीं मिल पा रही है। शासन ने मामले को गंभीरता से देखते हुए 31 मई तक जूनियर हाईस्कूलों के रिक्त पड़े प्रधानाध्यापकों के पद भर लेने का फरमान प्रदेश के सभी जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारियों को जारी किया है। शासन के फरमान पर उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में रिक्त पड़े प्रधानाध्यापकों के पद को भरने के लिए जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी कार्यालय द्वारा पदोन्नति के लिए नियुक्त एक लिपिक की देखरेख में जनपद स्तर पर ब्लाकवार वरिष्ठता सूची तैयार कराई गई है। लिपिक द्वारा तैयार सूची में व्यापक गड़बड़िया प्रकाश में आई हैं। सूत्रों की मानें तो जनपद मेें वर्ष 1973 से 1980 के बीच नियुक्त लगभग 250 वरिष्ठ शिक्षकों की सूची तैयार तो कर ली गई है, लेकिन दर्जनों वरिष्ठ अध्यापकों का नाम छूट गया है या व्यतिक्रम हो गया है। कुछ वरिष्ठ शिक्षकों के नाम सूची से ही गायब हैं। जबकि वे शिक्षक बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद में नियुक्ति के पश्चात अपनी नियमित सेवा देते हुए उक्त पद के लिए योग्य भी हैं। ऐसी स्थिति में सूची की जानकारी लेने के लिए शिक्षक विद्यालय से बीआरसी तक चक्कर काट रहे हैं। त्रुटियों पर नजर डाली जाए तो कोपागंज ब्लाक के उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय गौहरपुर के वरिष्ठ सहायक अध्यापक शोभनाथ राजभर, उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय जयरामगढ़ के सहायक अध्यापक रामजनम यादव, उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय देईथान की सहायक अध्यापिका बिंदूमती देवी, उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय धवरियासाथ के सहायक अध्यापक भावनाथ सिंह का नाम तैयार सूची में सम्मिलित नहीं था। हालांकि जैसे ही सूची में नाम शामिल न होने की भनक लगी तो वे तत्काल आपत्ति खंड शिक्षा अधिकारी कार्यालय में दर्ज करा दी। यह तो एक बानगी है। इसी तरह प्रत्येक ब्लाकों में इस तरह की शिकायतें देखने को मिल रही है। हालत यह है कि विभाग के संबंधित लिपिक की उदासीनता के चलते समयानुसार पदोन्नति का कार्य संपन्न होता नजर नहीं आ रहा है। सूची मेें आई त्रुटि की जानकारी न होने के चलते शिक्षक आपत्ति दर्ज नहीं करा पा रहे हैं।

ब्लाक संसाधन केंद्रों से संशोधित वरिष्ठता सूची प्राप्त होते ही रिक्त पदों के सापेक्ष शिक्षकों की सूची पदोन्नति समिति के सामने प्रस्तुत करते हुए पदोन्नति की कार्यवाही प्रारंभ कर दी जाएगी। -
रविंद्र सिंह,
जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी


News Source / Sabhaar : अमर उजाला (18.5.2013)
Read more...

Basic Education UP / UPTET /Anudeshak : बेसिक शिक्षा में बाजारवाद बर्दाश्त नहीं


Basic Education UP / UPTET /Anudeshak : बेसिक शिक्षा में बाजारवाद बर्दाश्त नहीं

  
पीलीभीत : प्रदेश के बेसिक शिक्षा राज्यमंत्री योगेश प्रताप सिंह ने कहा कि सपा सरकार बेसिक शिक्षा के स्तर में व्यापक सुधार लाने के लिए प्रयासरत है। बेसिक शिक्षा में बाजारवाद हावी नहीं होने दिया जाएगा।

श्री सिंह शुक्रवार को शहर के शिवाजी शिक्षा निकेतन विद्यालय में उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षक संघ द्वारा आयोजित मंडलीय सम्मेलन में बोल रहे थे। मुख्य अतिथि राज्यमंत्री ने कहा कि प्रदेश की सपा सरकार सत्तारूढ़ होने के बाद से बेसिक शिक्षा के स्तर में गुणात्मक सुधार लाने का निरन्तर प्रयास कर रही है। सुधार लाने के लिए सरकार ने 72 हजार शिक्षकों की भर्ती का कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया था किंतु न्यायालय ने उस पर रोक लगा दी।

प्रदेश के बेसिक विद्यालयों में 41 हजार अनुदेशकों की शीघ्र ही नियुक्ति कर दी जाएगी।
 उन्होंने कहा कि शिक्षा समाज व अच्छे व्यक्ति का निर्माण करने में अहम भूमिका निभाती है। शिक्षा में तेजी से हो रहे व्यवसायीकरण को रोकने की भी बात कही। शिक्षा को मात्र रोजगार का माध्यम न बनाते हुए उसके माध्यम से समाज व राष्ट्र का निर्माण करने का संदेश दिया। कुछ लोग सरकारी शिक्षा को आज पीछे करने पर काम कर रहे। उनके मनसूबों को किसी भी हालत में सफल नही होने दिया जाएगा।
उन्होंने शिक्षकों की पदोन्नति के बारे में कहा कि प्रदेश के जिन शिक्षकों की पदोन्नति लंबित है उन सभी की 20 मई तक पदोन्नति कर दी जाएगी। 
बीएसपी सरकार पर प्रहार करते हुए कहा कि उनके समय में विद्यालयों की मान्यताएं बिकती थी किंतु सपा की सरकार में ऐसा कदापि नहीं है। बल्कि मान्यताओं का सरलीकरण कर दिया गया है, जिससे बेसिक शिक्षा का स्तर उठाया जा सके। सम्मेलन की अध्यक्षता अरविंद जायसवाल ने की। संचालन सत्यप्रकाश उर्फ बिट्टू ने किया। कार्यक्रम में उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षक संघ के प्रदेश महामंत्री सुशील सिन्हा, सपा नेता रत्नेश गंगवार, सीनियर बेसिक शिक्षक संघ जिलाध्यक्ष भद्रपाल गंगवार, जिला पंचायत सदस्य गायत्री गंगवार, रामप्रताप गंगवार, बीडी प्रजापति ने विचार व्यक्त किए। इस मौके पर शाहूजी महाराज पब्लिक स्कूल के बच्चों ने सरस्वती वंदना व स्वागत गीत प्रस्तुत किए। विद्यालय के प्रबंधक मुरारीलाल गंगवार ने बेसिक शिक्षा राज्यमंत्री को पगड़ी पहनाकर व तलवार भेंट कर उनका अभिनंदन किया। कार्यक्रम में पूर्व जिला पंचायत सदस्य कुवंर सुदीप सिंह, चंद्रपाल मौर्य, बरेली के जिलाध्यक्ष संतोष कुमार, बदायूं के बीएल गुप्ता, प्रेमसागर, खरगसेन गंगवार, विद्या सागर शुक्ला, तेज प्रकाश वर्मा सहित बड़ी संख्या में बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग के शिक्षक व शिक्षिकाएं मौजूद थीं

News Source / Sabhaar : Jagran (Updated on: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:17 PM (IST))

Read more...

UP : Videography will be happen in TGT PGT Exam UP to Check Corrupt Elements

UP : Videography will be happen in TGT PGT Exam UP to Check Corrupt Elements
UPSESSB / UPMSSCB news
Really good news , I think - This should also be happen in Interviews.








Read more...

UPTET : छह माह में बदल जाएगी बेसिक शिक्षा की तस्वीर


UPTET : छह माह में बदल जाएगी बेसिक शिक्षा की तस्वीर
पीलीभीत : प्रदेश के बेसिक शिक्षा राज्यमंत्री योगेश प्रताप सिंह ने कहा है कि छह माह के अंदर बेसिक शिक्षा की तस्वीर बदल जाएगी। बेसिक शिक्षकों को मिड-डे मिल योजना के तहत बनवाए जाने वाले भोजन व्यवस्था से मुक्त कर दिया जाएगा। श्री सिंह पत्रकारों से वार्ता कर रहे थे।

उन्होंने जानकारी दी कि प्रदेश के सभी बेसिक विद्यालयों में संचालित मिड-डे मिल योजना के तहत बनवाए जाने वाले मध्यान भोजन व्यवस्था से विद्यार्थियों के पठन-पाठन में परेशानियां आ रही है। इसीलिए सरकार ने इस व्यवस्था से शिक्षकों को मुक्त करते हुए इस योजना को अक्षय पात्र संस्था द्वारा पूर्ण कराने का निर्णय लिया है। उन्होंने बेसिक विद्यालयों में शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों के बारे में पूछे गए सवाल पर कहा कि जून तक 29 हजार विज्ञान व गणित अध्यापकों की भर्ती की जाएगी। इसके अलावा 9 हजार शिक्षक तथा 7 हजार शिक्षामित्र प्रशिक्षण पूर्ण कर माह दिसम्बर तक विद्यालय में समायोजित कर दिए जाएगें। 20 मई को प्रदेश की सभी डायटों के शिक्षकों की बैठक बुलायी गयी है। डायट से संबधित शिक्षकों की समस्याएं सुनकर उनका निस्तारण कराया जाएगा। छह माह के अंदर ही पूरे प्रदेश की बेसिक शिक्षा में अभूतपूर्व बदलाव दिखायी देगा

News Source  / Sabhaar : Jagran (Updated on: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:19 PM (IST))
Read more...