Shiksha Mitra Highcourt Matter : शिक्षा मित्र और हाई कोर्ट मामला
टी
ई टी मामलों से जुड़े श्याम देव मिश्रा जी ने जब ये आर्टिकल फेसबुक पर
डाला तो हमने भी देखने की कोशिश की क्या है ये हाई कोर्ट का मामला :-
एक
रिज़र्व जजमेंट ने शिक्षामित्रों का प्रशिक्षण पूरा करवा दिया, अब क्या
दूसरा पेंडिंग या रिज़र्व जजमेंट नियुक्ति दिलवा देगा ? क्या यह न्याय है या
परदे के पीछे का खेल? अगर खेल हैं तो इस खेल के खिलाडी कौन-कौन ? कहीं
दिखावे की नूराकुश्ती तो नहीं? कोई सच्ची का मुकदमा करके मामले में न्याय न
करवा दे, इसलिए एक झूठमूठ के मुक़दमे का नाटक और अपनी मर्जी के दिखावे के
आदेश का नाटक, ताकि पब्लिक सोचे, मामला तो कोर्ट में है ही, सरकार तो आदेश
के अधीन है ही और इसी धोखे में सच्चा मुकदमा हो ही न ! अगर इनकी ट्रेनिंग
दूध की धुली थी तो आजतक 28004/2011 में निर्णय क्यों नहीं आया? किस निर्णय
या आदेश ने कब इन्हे ठेके पर गैर-रोजगारपरक सामुदायिक सेवा दे रहे स्थानीय
युवाओं के स्थान पर अप्रशिक्षित अध्यापक का दर्जा दिया ?
168000
पदों पर सेंधमारी है भाई ये तो ! इनमे तो बहुतेरे सिर्फ पहुँच का लाभ उठा
कर पैतीस सौ रुपये के मानदेय सुनिश्चित करने में कामयाब होने वाले लड़के थे,
इस से कौन इंकार करेगा ? क्या ये सरकारी वेतन पर राजनैतिक कैडर खड़ा करने
की कोशिश नहीं है?
क्या आप इस पोस्ट को शिक्षामित्रों के मामले से जोड़कर देख रहे हैं?
मर्ज़ी आपकी !!
*********************
28004/2011High Court Case Details : -
****
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28004 of 2011
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S.Kushwaha,Mohd. Ali Ausaf,R.A.Akhtar
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
List this petition with connected matters for further hearing.
Order Date :- 6.7.2012
GS
Source :
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1939932
****
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28004 of 2011
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S.Kushwaha,Mohd. Ali Ausaf,R.A.Akhtar
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Judgment reserved.
Order Date :- 14.10.2011SK
Source :
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1472697
***
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28004 of 2011
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S.Kushwaha,R.A.Akhtar
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent no. 1 & 2, Sri K.S. Kushwaha for respondent no. 3.
Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated
14.1.2011 issued by the National Council for Teachers Education
according approval to the proposal of the State Government for
conducting elementary teacher education programme of two years duration
through open and distance learning mode for training of untrained
graduate 'Shiksha Mitra' appointed by the State Government in elementary
schools subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
Sri
Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare contends
on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order is based upon a
wrong assumption that 'Shiksha Mitra' are untrained teachers as their
engagement is under a scheme notified by the Government Order dated
26.5.1999 as modified from time to time and is purely contractual in
nature and for one academic session. With reference to
the provision of Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 providing for qualification for
appointment and terms & conditions of service of teachers and
notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the National Council for Teachers
Education thereunder specifying minimum qualifications required to be
possessed by Assistant Teachers teaching in class I to VIII, it has been
urged that since the prescribed minimum qualifications for engagement
of 'Shiksha Mitra' is only intermediate certificate examination, the
persons so engaged do not conform to the minimum qualifications
prescribed for Assistant Teachers and thus they are being wrongly and
illegally considered as untrained teachers entitled to undergo training
programme. It has further been submitted that after enforcement of U.P.
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 training certificate is
essential qualification under Rule 8 and there does not exist any
provision for appointment of untrained teachers in any institution run
by the Board of Basic Education and thus the appointment of 'Shiksha
Mitra' is de hors the rules and they cannot be be treated to be legally
appointed untrained teachers so as to undergo training. Reliance in
support of the contention has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment
dated 17.12.2008 in special appeal no. 10 of 2010 wherein while
considering a similar scheme for imparting teachers training to
untrained teachers in privately managed recognized institutions, it has
been held that Assistant Teachers appointed after enforcement of U.P.
Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers & others) Conditions Rules, 1975 and U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service
of Teachers) Rules, 1978 in violation of provision thereof and without
possessing training qualification cannot be permitted to undergo
training. It is next contended that since the provisions of U.P. Public
Service (Reservation for S.C., S.T & O.B.C.) Act, 1994 are not
applicable in the scheme of appointment of 'Shiksha Mitra', imparting
training and their subsequent appointment shall violate the reservation
policy. It has further been submitted that under the scheme of
appointment of 'Shiksha Mitra', eligibility is restricted to candidates
belonging to the village where the educational institution is situated
or to the concerned Nyay Panchayat and their selection is not on the
basis of open general competition but limited to a localised section and
preference being given to such persons for training depriving the
petitioners and other similarly situated persons from participating in
open general competition would be discriminatory.
Learned Standing
Counsel for State respondents and Sri K.S. Kushwaha for respondent no. 3
when called upon only sought time to file counter affidavit.
As
prayed they may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Learned
Standing Counsel shall also produce the policy framed by State
Government.
Sri R.A.Akhtar who has accepted notice on behalf of
respondent no. 4 is not present even though the case has been taken up
in the revised list. He may also file counter affidavit within the same
period.
Petitioners will have three weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Since
prima-facie from a conjoint reading of National Council for Teachers
Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder, provision of U.P.
Basic Education Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009, it appears that the training is permissible only in
cases of validly and legally appointed untrained teachers and the
impugned approval dated 14.1.2011 for training of 'Shiksha Mitra'
proceeds upon an erroneous assumption that they are legally appointed
untrained teachers, the petitioners are entitled to interim order.
Further
in view of serious ramification of the consequences of the impugned
approval and the impact on very large number of candidates, also it
would be appropriate to pass an interim order.
Until further orders
of this Court, effect and operation of the impugned approval order dated
14.1.2011 passed by the National Council for Teacher Education, New
Delhi (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 18.5.2011
nd
Source :
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1251898
South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC)
