/* remove this */

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Some Recent Hearings / Decisions Made By Allahabad High Court Regarding Teachers Recruitment / Teacher Eligibility Test


Some Recent Hearings / Decisions Made By Allahabad High Court Regarding Teachers Recruitment / Teacher Eligibility Test








HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 1 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48974 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Samman Devi & Anr. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 7 Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhup Vishwas,Arun Kumar Tripathi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 
Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 to 8. 
Each one of the respondent is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 
List after eight weeks alongwith record of W.P. No. 34407 of 2013. 
It is being contended by the petitioners that there is judgment of this Court dated 21.5.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6999 (S/S) 2008 and therein this Court has interpreted Rule 22 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 holding seniority is to be determined from the date of substantive appointment. Petitioners submit that in such a situation once incumbent had been accorded promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary Schools to Higher post, then his/her seniority is not� to be calculated from the date of initially appointment but on the basis of substantive appointment. Petitioners submit that� seniority has been prepared on totally wrong premises and promotional exercise� now is to be undertaken. 
In view of this, District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur shall ensure at the point of time when he proceeds to accord promotion that seniority list should� adhered to strictly in consonance with Rule 22 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. 
Order Date :- 11.9.2013 
T.S. 



*******************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. 1 

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49437 of 2013 
Chandrika Yadav 
Versus 
State of U.P. and others. 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Petitioner has approached this court requesting therein that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher in any Basic school pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.6.2013. 
On the matter being taken up today, precise query has been raised as to what has been the foundation and basis for non issuing of appointment letter, and then it has been informed by Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, Advocate representing District Basic Education Officer that as on date petitioner cannot be offered appointment for the simple reason that he has crossed 50 years of age and as such he is ineligible to be offered appointment in consonance with IIIrd proviso of Rule-6 of U.P. Basic Eduction (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981. 
This Court has the occasion to peruse the aforementioned Rules, 1981 and Rule 6 deals with the age of a candidate who intends to be recruited for the post of Assistant Teacher and therein IIIrd proviso clearly proceeds to mention that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained un-appointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age, if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. Accepted position is that petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age and as such as on date no directive can be issued for consideration of his claim. Only relaxation which has been so accorded in this direction is same is in reference to candidates, who have completed Special B.T.C. Course, 1999 and B.Ed/B.P.Ed/C.P.Ed. and further relaxation has been accorded in reference of having degree in Urdu subject or complete B.T.C., upper age limit determined by the State Government. Here in the present case factual situation is that petitioner has crossed the age of 50 years. 
Prayer which has been made by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason on account of the fact that as on date petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age as such he is prohibited from being appointed under Rule-6 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Accepted position is that petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age and as such as on date no directive can be issued for consideration of his claim. Petitioner as on date is disqualified to be appointed as Assistant teacher under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. 
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. 
Dt. 12.09.2013 
T.S. 


**************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 6 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5124 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Meer Mujahid Ali & Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Basic Edu. & Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Misra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.R. Misra 

Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J. 
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and Sri D.R. Misra for opposite party no. 3. 
The petitioner is seeking a direction to the opposite party no. 1 to modify and add the necessary provision as given in Rule 14(4) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 in the advertisement dated 17.8.2013, as contained in Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. For convenience Rule 14 along with sub Rule 4 have been quoted by the petitioner in para no. 3 of the writ petition. The same is being reproduced in this order also : 
14. Determination of vacancies and preparation of list-(1) In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under clause (a) of rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, dependents of freedom fighters and other categories under Rule 9 and notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchange and in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State as well as in the concerned district inviting applications from candidates possessing prescribed training qualification from the district concerned. 
(2) The appointing authority shall scrutinize the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement and the names of candidates received from the Employment Exchange and prepare a list of such persons as appear to possess the prescribed academic qualifications and be eligible for appointment.) 
(3) The Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) may, on the application of a candidate, and for reasons to be recorded, direct that his name be included at the bottom of the list prepared under sub-rule-(2). 
-2- 
(4) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule� (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidates who have passed the required training course earlier in point of time shall be placed higher than those who have passed the said training course later and the candidates, who have passed the training course in a particular year shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the Appendix. 
(5) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless his or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule (2). 
(6) The list prepared under sub-rule (2) and arranged in accordance with sub-rule (4) shall be forwarded by the appointing authority to the selection committee.) 
Petitioner says that he has obtained certificate of 'Moillim-e-Urdu' in the year 1995 and he has also qualified T.E.T. in the year 2011. Petitioner simply says that in the merit list he should be given benefit of seniority to the persons who have obtained this degree subsequently. He says that this is the intention of the legislature while enacting Rule 14(4) as mentioned above. 
The advertisement dated 17.8.2013 has been annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. 
The petitioner does not have any conflict with the advertisement nor he is challenging any provision of the advertisement� / order dated 17.8.2013. This being so the argument of the petitioner appears to be sanguine and correct. 
The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to deny the argument of the petitioner on any legal ground. However, he prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. One week is provided to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. 
Meanwhile the opposite parties are directed to arrange the names of the petitioner year-wise in accordance with the spirit of sub rule (4) of Rule 14 as mentioned above. The merit list shall be prepared accordingly. 
Order Date :- 9.9.2013/Om


***********************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 1 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44405 of 2013 
Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar And 2 Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Ram 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B.Pradhan 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Sri R V Pradhan, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 
Six weeks time is accorded to each one of the respondent to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks. 
List thereafter, alongwith Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 34407 of 2013 (Ved Prakash Gautam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). 
This court has already stayed the operation of the circular dated 14.06.2013, as such no separate� order is required to be passed repeating same order. 
However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from finalizing the seniority list strictly as per Rule 22 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981. 
Order Date :- 29.8.2013 
Dhruv 

***********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 34 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13922 of 1996 
Petitioner :- Jawahar Yadav & Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- N.I. Jafri,M.R. Khan 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 
1. Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of petitioner. However, I have perused the record. 
2. The petitioner has sought following relief: 
"to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.1.96 (Annexure-8 to the petition) passed by respondent no. 2." 
3. The petitioners appear to have been sent for training in 1996 having been appointed sometimes in 1984-85, i.e., after promulgation of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. It is also evident from record that petitioners did not possess training qualification and, hence as per Rules 4 and 5 could not have been appointed lacking requisite qualification. That being so, their appointment itself being illegal, they would not have been sent for training. 
4. This issue has already been considered in detail vide judgment of date passed in Writ Petition No. 13918 of 1996, Ram Awatar Mishra and another Vs. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and another and for the reasons stated therein and following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is also stands dismissed. 
Order Date :- 4.9.2013 
AK 

************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 31 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64888 of 2008 

Petitioner :- Suresh Singh 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Bhanot,G.S. Chauhan 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,J.N. Maurya,Sushil Kumar Singh 

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. 
The petitioner is a Ex-Serviceman, he has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.11.2008 whereby his representation for relaxation in age has been rejected. 
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 
The petitioner did his BTC training course in the year 1974 and after training he was enrolled in the Indian Army as RECT on 3rd May, 1976. After reaching his age of superannuation petitioner retired on 1.6.2005. After superannuation he made an application for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by the Board on 18th August, 2005. However, his application has been rejected on the ground that petitioner age is beyond the age limit mentioned in the statute. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 15489 of 2007 (Suresh Singh v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4.2.2008 with a direction to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequent thereupon the Basic Shiksha Adhikari after affording opportunity to the petitioner rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is above 50 years and there is no provision for grant of relaxation of age beyond 50 years. The order dated 9.2.2007 has been passed jointly under the signature of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is an Ex-Servicemen and all BTC holder upto the year 1997 have been given appointment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the recruitment of the Assistant Teacher are governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and after receiving instruction from the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Along with the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has annexed a document to establish that similarly situated persons whose age was beyond the upper age limit have been granted appointment. The said communication dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Principal DIET, Maharajganj to one Subedar is placed on record as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, the said communication has been obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of Right To Information Act. As the said document was enclosed first time along with the rejoinder affidavit this Court directed the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to file Supplementary Affidavit replying the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit. In compliance thereafter Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed today. In the said Supplementary Counter Affidavit the communication which has been brought on the record to establish that the similarly situated persons have been given appointment has not been replied/denied. 
I have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as learned Standing Counsel. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Bhanot submits that the petitioner was entitled for the age relaxation and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without application of mind has rejected the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner completed his training in the year 1974 and as such he is entitled for the upper age limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document which has been placed by the petitioner on record regarding similarly situated persons who are also Ex-Servicemen and their age is above 50 years is not denied in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. 
Learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari submits that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari before passing the said order has sought clarification from the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad who clearly stated that there is no power to provide age relaxation beyond 50 years to the Ex-Servicemen. In view of the said clarification/guidance issued by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 
I have considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic School are governed by the statutory rules which has been framed in exercise of power under subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P.Act B No.34 of 1972) and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short Rules, 1981). Rule 6 of the Rules, 1981deals with requisite age of a candidate. The said Rule reads as under:- 
"6 Age.- A candidate for recruitment to any post referred to in Clause (a) or proviso to clause (b) of Rule 5, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than Thirty -five years on the first day of July, following the year in which the vacancy is notified: 
Provided that the upper age limit shall, in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and dependents of freedom fighters be greater by five years or as provided by the State Government from time to time : 
Provided further that the upper age limit shall, in the case of a candidate, who is ex-serviceman, be greater by three years or as provided by the State Government form time to time: 
Provided also that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment: 
Provided also that no upper age limit shall apply in case of B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed or D.P.Ed. trained candidates who have completed special B.T.C. Training Course in the year 1999: 
Provided also that in case of candidates having proficiency in Urdu and having completed two years B.T.C.Urdu special B.T.C. training course or completed special BTC training course the upper age limit shall be such as may be determined from time to time by the State Government" 
For the ex-servicemen in addition to the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rule, 1981 Rule 10 also empowers the authority concerned for grant of relaxation in certain other categories. Rule 10 of the Rules,1981 reads as under:- 
"Relaxation for ex-servicemen and certain other categories.- Relaxation, if any, from the maximum age-limit, educational qualifications or/and any procedural requirements of recruitment in favour of the ex-servicemen, disabled military personnel, dependents of military personnel dying in action, dependants of Board's servants dying in harness and sportsmen shall be in accordance with the general rules or order of the Government in this behalf in force at the time of recruitment." 
A close look at the gamut of the said Rules it comes out that in the case of ex-servicemen there are provisions for the relaxation under Rule 6 of the Rules,1981 as well as specific Rule has been made Rule 10 of the Rules,1981. From the perusal of the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari it is demonstrably established that the statutory Rules have not been taken into consideration. This Court had directed the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It appears that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without application of his mind has simply sought a clarification from his superior officer and merely on the communication received from the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad he has passed the impugned order. Once this Court has issued a direction for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari it was obligatory on him to comply the direction instead of complying in true spirit the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has done an empty formality. On this ground his order is vitiated. 
Pertinently, petitioner has relied on another Rule the U.P. (Bhootpurva Sainiko Ke Tritya Shreni aur Chaturth Shreni Ki ab varg 'Ga' aur varg 'Gha' Sevaon Me Aur Paddo Per Rikityo Ka Arakshan) Niyamavali-1977 (in short 1977 Rules). Rule 5 of the 1772 Rules provides that Ex-Army person shall be allowed to reduce the tenure of his service from his actual age. Rule 5 as quoted in paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition reads as as under :- 

"5. Relaxation in the Age and Educational Qualification: (1) Age: an Ex-Army person shall be allowed to reduce the tenure of his service in the Army from his actual age and thereafter, the said calculated age, for the post the person is desirous of, if he is not exceeding 3 years for the prescribed age limit, it shall be deemed that the person is fulfilling the requirements of upper age limit. According to petitioner, in terms of said rule he is entitled for relaxation that is evident from Chart given below:- 
S.No. 
Present age of the petitioner at the time of request for the post in question 
Service period of the petitioner in the Indian Army 
Calculated age as per the Rule 1977 (upper age for the post in question 35 years) 
52 years approx 
29 years approx 
52-29= 23 years 

Petitioner has also brought on record an information which was furnished to him under the provisions of the RTI Act. The Basic Shiksha Adhkari in his communication dated 31.8.2007 has informed that in case of Ex-servicemen personnel the actual period served by him in the Army shall be excluded. A copy of the said document is Annexure -14 to the writ petition. 
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in my view the Director of Education may be issued a direction to consider the cause of the petitioner having regard to the statutory provisions and the factual disputes whether the similarly situate persons have been extended the proviso of Rule 6 and Rule 10 of the Rules, 1981. This fact was categorically mentioned by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit and the document which he has received under the Right to Information Act was placed on the record. Inspite of the direction of this Court to file a specific averment a Supplementary Counter Affidavit which has been filed doe not meet the factual aspects raised in the rejoinder affidavit. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not like to enter into determination of this factual aspects. 
After careful consideration of the aforesaid submissions and the facts a direction is issued upon the Director of Education, Basic to consider the cause of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observation as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of communication of this order. the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation along with the supporting documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 
For the aforestated reasons the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is liable to be quashed. 
Accordingly it is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 
Parties will bear their own cost. 
Order dated :1.2.2013 
ssm 


**********************
Some candidates suggested that below writ is of professional candidate to appear in Upper Primary Teachers Selection -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44400 of 2013

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gautam And 28 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
On the matter being taken up today, statement has been made at the Bar that the request, as has been raised by the petitioners before this Court, has been accorded by the State Government and, in view of this, as of date present writ petition has been rendered itself as infructuous.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 10.9.2013
Shekhar

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2782278
*****************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44400 of 2013

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gautam And 28 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Put up this case on Wednesday i.e. 4.9.2013.
By that time learned Standing Counsel shall obtain requisite instructions.
Order Date :- 29.8.2013
T.S.
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2758449


Read more...

Sunday, September 22, 2013

60 Thousand Shiksha Mitra will get Pay of Rs 25000/- after samayojan / regularization in Primary Teacher Job


60 Thousand Shiksha Mitra will get Pay of Rs 25000/- after samayojan / regularization in Primary Teacher Job










 News Sabhaar : Hindustan Epaper (22.9.13)
*******************
As per news BUDGET PROVISION already made for this Samayojan.

Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : Increase in Age Limit from 35 to 40 Years is Dismissed in Allahabad Highcourt

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : Increase in Age Limit from 35 to 40 Years is Dismissed in Allahabad Highcourt








However one more writ of Shalini Gangwar regarding increase in age limit is pending in court for disposal.


See news :

News Sabhaar : Hindustan Paper (22.9.13)
********************************************
See the writ of Shalini Gangwar -


?Court No. - 1 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51783 of 2013 
Petitioner :- Shalini Gangwar 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Ved Mani Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
On the matter being taken up today, Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate has submitted that applications are being invited for making selection and appointment on the post Assistant Teacher in the subject of Science and Math and his submission is that said selection has to be undertaken in consonance with the provision as contained under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. It has also been stated that policy decision has been circulated on 11.07.2013 and same� also refers to U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 as amended up till today and therein age in question has been prescribed as it should be on 01.07.2013 relaxation has been� minimum age of 21 years and maximum age of 35 years has been prescribed, and threrein various contingencies accorded to the respective incumbents belonging to their respective category. Petitioner submits that at the said point of time when age relaxation has been accorded same provisions ought to have been provided as has been provided under the III proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules 1981 wherein it has been specifically been provided that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained un-appointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age, if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. Once such benefit has been extended by the statutory rules then same cannot be curtailed by the Government Order dated 11.07.2013. 
Let necessary instructions be obtained by Learned Standing counsel as well as learned counsel representing Board of Basic Education by the next date fixed. 
Put up this matter on 25.09.2013 in the computer list. 
Order Date :- 20.9.2013


Read more: http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#ixzz2faJdc300



Read more...

Shiksha Mitra News : शिक्षा मित्रों को जनवरी से मिलेगा नया वेतन

Shiksha Mitra News : शिक्षा मित्रों को जनवरी से मिलेगा नया वेतन


शिक्षक बनते ही पाएंगे 25 हजार








लखनऊ  पहले चरण में प्रशिक्षण पा रहे शिक्षा मित्रों को शिक्षक बनने पर 24,970 रुपये वेतन मिलेगा। ऐसे 60 हजार शिक्षकों के वेतन निर्धारण का प्रस्ताव बना लिया गया है। इसी के अनुसार अनुपूरक बजट में प्रावधान भी किया गया है। इन शिक्षा मित्रों का प्रशिक्षण दिसंबर में पूरा होगा और जनवरी में शिक्षक के तौर पर इनका समायोजन किया जाएगा।

प्रदेश में एक लाख 24 हजार शिक्षा मित्रों को दो चरणों में नियमित शिक्षक बनाया जाना है। पहले चरण में जनवरी-2014 में 60 हजार शिक्षा मित्रों का प्रशिक्षण पूरा होने पर वे नियमित हो जाएंगे। उसके एक साल बाद जनवरी- 2015 में 64 हजार शिक्षा मित्र नियमित होंगे। इनके अनुमानित वेतन और उस पर आने वाले खर्च का प्रस्ताव तैयार कर लिया गया है। बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशालय में वित्त नियंत्रक ने यह प्रस्ताव निदेशक को भेज दिया है।

प्रस्तावित वेतनमान के मुताबिक 9300 रुपये पेबैंड, 4200 रुपये ग्रेड पे, 10800 रुपये महंगाई भत्ता और 670 रुपये किराया भत्ता दिया जाएगा। शुरू में कुल वेतन 24,970 रुपये होगा।
 इस पर आने वाले खर्च के लिए सरकार ने जनवरी- फरवरी-2014 में दो अरब 99 करोड़ 64 लाख के अनुपूरक बजट का प्रावधान किया है। दूसरे चरण के 64 हजार शिक्षा मित्रों के वेतन पर चार अरब 79 करोड़ 42 लाख 40 हजार रुपये के खर्च का अनुमान जनवरी- फरवरी-2015 के लिए किया गया है

उप्र शिक्षा मित्र-शिक्षक कल्याण समिति ने इस पर खुशी का इजहार किया है। समिति के अध्यक्ष अनिल कुमार वर्मा, महामंत्री शिवशंकर राजभर और उपाध्यक्ष रश्मिकांत ने सरकार को इसके लिए धन्यवाद दिया है


News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (22.9.13)

Read more...

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Larger Bench Going To Constitute for Selection of Graduate + B. Ed Candidate in Management College, Where Petitioner Dies Not Possess Requisite Qualification and their appointment cancelled

Larger Bench Going To Constitute for Selection of Graduate + B. Ed Candidate in Management College, Where Petitioner Dies Not Possess Requisite Qualification and their appointment cancelled



See Judgement -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 35

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1234 of 2013

Appellant :- Ram Surat Yadav And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indra Raj Singh

Hon'ble Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This special appeal has been filed by the petitioners/appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.7.2013 dismissing the writ petition. 
The petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 41272 of 2013 seeking quashing of the order dated 22.4.2013/13.5.2013 passed by the Director of Education (Basic) U.P., Lucknow, whereby the District Basic Education Officer has been directed to cancel the approval granted previously to the appointment of the petitioners. 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an exercise was initiated by the Committee of Management of the Jan Sewa Samiti Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Naugeera, Mauaima, Allahabad for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1978). The vacancies were advertised in the newspaper "Amar Ujala" and a selection took place on 24.12.2006. After selection, the papers were forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer alongwith certain objections, which had been raised. The claim was rejected on 23.5.2007 but the management represented the matter before the District Basic Education Officer and the parties were called and heard and thereafter approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioners on 8.8.2007. This order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.55818 of 2007 by one Chandra Bali Patel and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that if the said petitioner represents his case before the Director of Education (Basic), the Director of Education shall adjudicate the controversy in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondents no. 4 to 8. On re-examination of the matter, the claim of the petitioners has been disapproved by the impugned order dated 22.4.2013/13.5.2013. This order has been challenged in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. The claim of the petitioners therein has been rejected inter alia on the ground that the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility qualification required for the post of Assistant Teacher (Basic) and they did not possess the training certificate of BTC, HTC or JTC. Before the writ court the petitioners contended that their appointments had been validly made in terms of the provisions of Rules, 1978 and they have also been paid salary and therefore, the approval granted could not have been cancelled. 
Per contra, the respondents before the writ court submitted that the petitioners did not possess the requisite minimum qualification at the time when they were appointed and therefore, their appointments were absolutely illegal. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1978 as then existing Rule 4 (1) is being extracted below: 
"4. Minimum Qualification(1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination (with Hindi and teacher's training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such a Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. 
The above Rule 4(1) had also been quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. From a careful reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is apparent that the candidate concerned must have passed Intermediate Examination or equivalent examination with Hindi as one of the subjects and must have also obtained Teacher's Training Certificate recognized by the State Government Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate or Certificate of Training." 
Rule 4 (1) provides that the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination with Hindi and teacher's training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training.
Admittedly all the petitioners only possess the educational qualification of B.A. and B.Ed and they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having a Teacher's Training Course as prescribed in Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 1978. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having a Teacher's Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate or Certificate of Training. Before the writ court the petitioners tried to contend that the Rules, 1978 had been amended by the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment of Service of Teachers) (Vth Amendment) Rules, 2008, which came into force on 12.6.2008 and according to which B.Ed. has been accepted as one of the Teacher's Training Certificate and therefore, the petitioners having a B.Ed. qualification, their appointment was valid. This contention has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Amendment Rules, 2008 came into force on 12.6.2008 and whereas, the advertisement had been issued earlier and the selection had also taken place on 24.12.2006, therefore, the Amendment Rules, 2008 would not apply retrospectively.
Across the bar, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha has submitted that vide the Amendment Rules, 2008 the Degree of B.Ed. has been recognised as one of the Teacher's Training Certificate and therefore, the petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground that they did not possess the minimum eligibility qualification of a Teacher's Training Certificate as prescribed by the State Government or the Board. Sri Ojha further submitted that the Amendment Rules, 2008 would apply retrospectively, even to the selection held on 24.12.2006 and therefore, the petitioners having the eligibility of qualification of B.Ed. would be held to be having the requisite Teacher's Training Certificate.
Rebutting the submissions of the learned counsel, Sri Indra Raj Singh has submitted that eligibility qualification of B.Ed. cannot be held to be equivalent to a Teacher's Training Certificate and this controversy is no longer res integra having been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj and another vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 315. In the case of Mohd. Sartaj (supra) the appellants-Teachers possessed the Degree of Moallim-e-Urdu but they did not possess a Teacher's Training Certificate. Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 provided that Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistress Junior Basic School must possess the following academic qualifications:
"A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto: Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course.
(2) The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Senior Basic School for teaching Science, Mathematics, Craft or any language other than Hindi shall be as follow:-
(i) Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or any other examination recognized as equivalent thereto by the State Government with Science, Mathematics, Craft or particular language, as the case may be, as one of the subjects in which he or she has been examined for the purpose of such examination; and
(ii) Training qualification consisting of Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by Government as equivalent thereto."

The advertisement in that case was issued on 15.10.1984 and 19.6.1985 the list of selected candidates was published which included the names of Mohd. Sartaj and another. However, on 7.8.1985 the Urdu Advisory Director of Education issued Direction regarding cancellation of the appointment of the appellants on the ground that they did not possess the Basic Training Certificate and on 9.8.1985 their appointment was cancelled. In the meanwhile, Mohd. Sartaj and another acquired B.T.C. in 1993 and 1995 respectively.
The Supreme Court held that the requisite qualification for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) is High School Examination of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. or equivalent qualification recognised by the State Government together with training qualification which conceded either one among the Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.), Hindustani Teacher's Certificate and held that the admitted position is that the qualification of Basic Teacher's Certificate or Hindustani Teacher's Certificate or Junior Teacher's Certificate or Certificate of Training was not possessed by the appellants Mohd. Sartaj and another at the time of their appointment as Assistant Teachers as prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules, 1981.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2005 (1) ESC (All) 713 interpreting the provisions of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 1978 has held that the Teacher's Training Course referred to in Rule 4 (1) is a requisite training qualification for teaching small children and therefore B.Ed./L.T./B.Ed/C.P.Ed. Or D.P.Ed. certificates cannot be taken into consideration in the matter of teaching small children keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 4 (1). Paras 15 and 16 of the judgment read as follows:
"15. It cannot be disputed that the Teacher's Training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes whereas the Basic Teaching Certificate (hereinafter referred to as B.T.C.') is given to teachers for teaching small children and the two cannot be compared with, as has been clearly observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of N.C.T. Delhi and others, (2003) 3 SCC 548. The duration of courses of B.T.C. and L.T./.Ed. are entirely different and have been devised keeping in view the stages through which the students pass. In the case of B.T.C. the method of Training Course is devised so as to meet the requirement of teaching at a formative stage for a student who enters the School. Thus it is evident that the training qualification for teaching small children is B.T.C. While the training qualification for teaching children in High Schools and Intermediate Colleges is B.Ed. or L.T.
16. We should, therefore, interpret Rule 4(1) of the 1978 rules keeping in mind the observations made by us above and if we do so then there can be no manner of doubt that the Teacher's Training Course referred to in the said Rule should be confined to such Training Course which are imparted to teach small children only. This is the reason why the Legislature has specifically referred to four such Training Courses which are specifically confined to Specialised Training for imparting education to small children and if we interpret it in such a manner then the question whether the four Certificates referred to in Rule 4 (1) of the 1978 Rules are exhaustive or illustrative may not assume much significance since even if it is held that they are merely illustrative then too we are of the opinion that only such other certificates can be taken into consideration which relate to Specialised Training for imparting education to small children. The B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed/C.P.Ed. Or D.P.Ed. Certificates cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration." 
Another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 995 of 2007 (Chandra Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) considering the earlier judgment of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sartaj (supra) has affirmed the view taken in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi that the Degree of B.Ed. is not equivalent or at par with Teacher's Training Course Certificate contemplated by Rule 4 (2) (b) of Rules, 1978.
In his rejoinder submissions Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (supra) has been considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2011 (Rishi Kant Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the said Division Bench has distinguished the judgment of Mohd. Sartaj on the ground that the cancellation of the order of appointment of the appellant before the Supreme Court was issued within a very short span of time giving no probability for any legitimate expectation to the appellants regarding continuation of their service whereas in the case before the Division Bench a long span of time has expired and such a long span of time gives rise to a legitimate expectation.
Sri Ojha further submitted that against the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma, SLP (civil) No.22132 of 2011 was filed but the same was dismissed with the following observation:-
"No case is made out for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly."
Sri R.K. Ojha further submitted that another Division Bench judgment dated 9.1.2009 in Special Appeal No. 1461 of 2005 was also dismissed against which S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14907 of 2009 has been filed and in which the Supreme Court has issued notice and granted interim stay. His contention, therefore, is that in view of the two orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma and the interim order in the case of Savitri Devi and others the appointment of the appellants on the post of Assistant Teacher cannot be held to be bad for deficiency of the eligibility qualification of Teacher's Training Certificate.
So far as the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma is concerned, the said writ petition has been dismissed by the order which has already been quoted hereinabove and the said order cannot be said to be a speaking order laying down any law which may be a precedent. The Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 1780 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar) has held that a mere dismissal of Special Appeal by non speaking order which reads as " The Special Leave Petition is dismissed" does not justify any inference that by implications the contentions raised in the Special Leave Petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Court.
The Supreme Court has also held that a stay order granted by the Supreme Court in a case before it is only an order inter parte and does not constitute a judgment or have a binding force of precedent where a similar question may arise before the writ court.
However the moot question before us is that the consistent view of the various Division Benches of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (supra) and Chandra Prakash (supra) and in the judgment of Supreme Court of Mohd. Sartaj and others (supra) is that the Teacher's Training Certificate is an absolutely essential qualification for teaching small children in the Basic Schools. This view has not been disputed in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma but the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (supra) has been distinguished only on the ground that in that case the order of cancellation of appointment of the appellants therein was passed within a short span of time whereas, in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma the appellants had continued to work as Assistant Teacher for 8 long years and therefore, a legitimate expectation had been created in their favour. Thus in our view, there is a conflict of decisions between the Division Benches of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Savitri Devi, Chandra Prakash Singh and of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (supra) on the one hand and that of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma. The Rules, 1978 do not provide any relaxation in the eligibility criteria laid down in Rule 4(1). Therefore, the question would arise as to whether such relaxation could be granted by a judicial opinion and whether the judgment of Rishi Kant Sharma lays down the correct law in view of the legal position settled by several Division Bench decisions referred to above and the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (supra).
In our view, the matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench as to whether the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Special Appeal No.80 of 2011 lays down the correct law. 
We accordingly direct the Office to lay the papers of this case before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench for determination of the legal question raised above. 
Order Date :- 4.9.2013
N Tiwari





Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP / Allahabad Highcourt : Writ Filed by Shalini Gangwar regarding age relaxation in Upper Primary School Teacher Recruitment

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP / Allahabad Highcourt : Writ Filed by Shalini Gangwar regarding age relaxation in Upper Primary School Teacher Recruitment









?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51783 of 2013
Petitioner :- Shalini Gangwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Ved Mani Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
On the matter being taken up today, Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate has submitted that applications are being invited for making selection and appointment on the post Assistant Teacher in the subject of Science and Math and his submission is that said selection has to be undertaken in consonance with the provision as contained under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. It has also been stated that policy decision has been circulated on 11.07.2013 and same� also refers to U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 as amended up till today and therein age in question has been prescribed as it should be on 01.07.2013 relaxation has been� minimum age of 21 years and maximum age of 35 years has been prescribed, and threrein various contingencies accorded to the respective incumbents belonging to their respective category. Petitioner submits that at the said point of time when age relaxation has been accorded same provisions ought to have been provided as has been provided under the III proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules 1981 wherein it has been specifically been provided that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained un-appointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age, if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. Once such benefit has been extended by the statutory rules then same cannot be curtailed by the Government Order dated 11.07.2013.
Let necessary instructions be obtained by Learned Standing counsel as well as learned counsel representing Board of Basic Education by the next date fixed.
Put up this matter on 25.09.2013 in the computer list.
Order Date :- 20.9.2013

Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP जूनियर हाईस्कूल में भर्ती का मामलाः सरकार से मांगी गई जानकारी उम्र में छूट के लिए पहुंचे हाईकोर्ट


Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP जूनियर हाईस्कूल में भर्ती का मामलाः सरकार से मांगी गई जानकारी
उम्र में छूट के लिए पहुंचे हाईकोर्ट







इलाहाबाद। हाईकोर्ट ने उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती शामिल होने वाले अभ्यर्थियों को आयुसीमा में छूट देने के मामले में प्रदेश सरकार से जवाब मांगा है। अभ्यर्थियों का आरोप है कि टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को आयुसीमा में छूट दी जानी चाहिए थी। मगर बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा जारी विज्ञापन मेें आयुसीमा में छूट नहीं दी गई है। ऐसा नहीं करने से हजारों योग्य अभ्यर्थी आवेदन करने से वंचित रह गए। शालिनी गंगवार और अन्य ने इस मामले में याचिका दाखिल की है जिस पर न्यायमूर्ति वीके शुक्ला ने प्रदेश सरकार और परिषद् से जवाब तलब किया है।
याची के अधिवक्ता वेदमणि तिवारी ने बताया कि बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद् नियमावली 1981 के पैरा छह के अनुसार आयुसीमा में छूट दी जानी चाहिए थी। आठ अक्तूबर 2012 को जारी शासनादेश के अनुसार जो आवेदक पद रिक्त न होने के कारण आवेदन नहीं कर सके थे, उनकी आयु नियुक्ति की तिथि को पचास साल से अधिक नहीं होनी चाहिए। प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में नियुक्ति के समय इस आदेश का पालन किया गया। जूनियर हाईस्कूल में नियुक्ति हेतु जारी विज्ञापन में आयु सीमा में छूट न देने से हजारों अभ्यर्थी आवेदन करने से वंचित हो गए हैं


News Sabhaar : अमर उजाला (21.9.13)
Read more...

UPTET : नियुक्ति के लिए निकाला कैंडल मार्च

UPTET : नियुक्ति के लिए निकाला कैंडल मार्च


इलाहाबाद । 72825 सहायक अध्यापक पदों पर नियुक्ति की मांग को लेकर टीईटी पास छात्रों से शुक्रवार को कैंडल जुलूस निकाला। रास्ते भर छात्रों ने ‘मानसिक शोषण बंद करो, छात्रों को नियुक्ति दो’ के नारे लगाए। अनशन स्थल से शुरू हुआ जुलूस हाईकोर्ट होते हुए सुभाष चौराहे पर पहुंचा।
छात्रों का कहना है कि टीईटी पास अभ्यर्थियों को दो बार आवेदन करने के बाद भी नौकरी नहीं मिल सकी है। नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में सरकार के ढुलमुल रवैये से हजारों छात्रों का भविष्य अधर में है। पिछले छह महीने से कोई सुनवाई नहीं हो रही है। जुलूस में मनोज मौर्य, संजय पांडेय, आशीष मौर्य, रवि पांडेय राणा, रमिंदर मौजूद रहे

News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (21.9.13)




Read more...

Friday, September 20, 2013

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP / Allahabad Highcourt : सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में गुणांक प्रणाली को चुनौती

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP / Allahabad Highcourt : सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में गुणांक प्रणाली को चुनौती




इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने राज्य के राजकीय जूनियर हाईस्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती प्रक्रि या में अपनायी गयी गुणांक प्रणाली की वैधता को चुनौती दी है।
 
न्यायालय ने इस मामले पर अंतरिम आदेश पारित नहीं किया तथा सरकार से चार सप्ताह में जवाब मांगा है। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति वी.के.शुकला ने आलोक कुमार यादव की याचिका पर दिया है। याची की तरफ से कहा गया था कि जूनियर हाईस्कूलों में 29328 सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती की जा रही है। भर्ती विज्ञान व गणित विषय के लिए की जा रही है। भर्ती नियमावली में बी.एड के प्रथम श्रेणी पर 12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी पर छह अंक व तृतीय श्रेणी पर तीन अंक दिए जाने की व्यवस्था दोषपूर्ण है। याचिका पर अदालत छह सप्ताह बाद सुनवाई करेगी

News Sabhaar : Livehindustan.com / Hindustan Epaper (20.9.13)



Read more...