डोमिसाइल / निवास प्रमाण पत्र और उत्तर प्रदेश शिक्षक भर्ती
29334 Junior
High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment, 29334 junior
teachervacancy in up latest news, Upper Primary Teacher
Recruitment UP, UPTET, SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS ,
SARKARI NAUKRI
आजकल बहुत से लोगो के मन में प्रश्न है कि डोमिसाइल / निवास प्रमाण पत्र कबका होना चाहिए ,
मेरे ख्याल से उत्तर प्रदेश का निवास प्रमाण पत्र है तो वह काफी है लेकिन शासन / बी एस ए के क्या निर्देश हैं वही मान्य होंगे और
यह बात आप डाइट से संपर्क करके पता कर सकते हैं
पहले भी कुछ मामले कोर्ट में गए और वहां क्या हुआ देखें :-
Is Yachika se Pata Chalta Hai Ki Yachee Ne Bilkul Taja Praman Patra Laga Diyaa,
Aur Shayad Counslling Mein Aavedan Se Pehle Ka Domicile Manga Gaya Thaa.
Aur is Technical Ground Se Uski Niyukti Mein Priblem Huee,
Lekin uske Paas Purana Domicile (Aavedan Se Poorva Ka) Bhee Thaa,
Court ne Baat Ko Dekha Aur Yachee Relief Diyaa
(Note -
Aap Counslling mein Jaroor DIET / BSA / Dept. se Confirma Kar Len ki
Kaisa Domicile Chalegaa, Niyukti Vibhag ko Karnee Hai, Wahee Aapko Sahee
Jaankaree De Sakte Hain)
Ek Dusree Yachika Bhee Hai, Jisen Sirf Domicile Hone Par Court Ne Allow Kar Diyaa
*********
Sahee Aur Jyada Jankare Aap Comment Ke Madyam Se De Sakte Hain
*********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 134 of 2014
Petitioner :- Mohd. Abdul Wafa Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard
Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ghaus
Beg, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
The petitioner after qualifying the TET Examination had applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language).
The petitioner belongs to Village Dihwa Sher Bahadur Singh, District
BAhraich. The petitioner's case has been rejected on the ground that he
has not submitted a valid domicile certificate along with his papers
before the counseling.
The petitioner has submitted
that he had a valid domicile certificate issued by the competent
authority on 20.11.2010 which has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 at page
25 of the writ petition.
Petitioner also has a valid domicile certificate issued on 05.12.2013 issued by the competent authority,
the same has also been annexed as Annexure No. 3 at page 26 of the writ
petition. Validity of both the certificates is not in question.
The
problem arose because of the fact that the petitioner submitted the
latest certificate of domicile along with his papers while appearing in
the counseling. He says that he did possess an earlier
domicile certificate but the same was not attached with the papers as
concerning clerk advised him not to do so.
This may not be true but the fact remains that residence of the petitioner does not remain doubtful.
Sri
Ghaus Beg has submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed his
domicile certificate on the date of application i.e. on 04.09.2013 and a
subsequent domicile certificate cannot be accepted by the authorities.
Sri
Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner would have been selected and found place in the
merit list because of the high marks obtained by him but for the want of
correct domicile certificate
he pleads that the life of the petitioner may not be ruined on technical grounds. He
further says that he had valid domicile certificate on the date of
application i.e. on 04.09.2013 due to some misunderstanding the same
could not be attached with the papers submitted by him. He further says
that both the documents can be verified by the authorities, if the
authorities so choose. His statement on oath and the statement at Bar of
the counsel forces the Court to believe that the domicile certificate
of the petitioner is correct.
Accordingly,
the opposite parties are directed to look into the matter and if the
domicile certificate of the petitioner is correct and a vacancy is
available the case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment
as he otherwise appears to be eligible and in the merit list.
A meritorious student should be dealt with compassion and a broad
minded approach rather than parochial and narrow interpretation of rules
by the authorities who live in a welfare state.
Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.1.2014
IrfanUddin
*******************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1814 of 2014
Petitioner :- Syed Maskoor Hussain
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., M. M. Asthana
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard
Sri R. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
counsel for the State and Sri M. M. Asthana for opposite party No.4.
The
petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
(Urdu Language) after qualifying the T.E.T. from the State of U.P. The
last date for submitting the application was 16.9.2013. This date was
earlier fixed as 7.9.2013� but by annexure No.9 dated 31.8.2013 the last
date was extended upto 16th September, 2013. The conditions have been
given in annexure No.5, which is a government order dated 17th August,
2013. It has been provided that the petitioner on the date of
application should possess all the qualifications as given in the
government order. The petitioner made online application on 24th August,
2013. Petitioner was called for counselling on 18th December, 2013.
The petitioner had a valid domicile certificate issued on 4.9.2013. Petitioner's
case has been rejected on the ground that when she had made online
application she was not having domicile certificate.
The Court is
exasperated on the interpretation the opposite parties have given to the
provisions contained in annexure No.5. The petitioner possessed� the
necessary domicile certificate prior to 16.9.2013.
At the time of counselling the domicile certificate which was validly
issued on 4.9.2013 was presented before the authorities. The case has
been rejected by total misinterpretation and a very rigid and narrow
interpretation of the government order dated 17th August, 2013. Such an
interpretation is not expected from senior officers like� the B.S.A.
Sri
M. M. Asthana has very efficiently sought instructions in this matter.
So far factual aspects are concerned there is no dispute about the dates
hence the petition is being disposed of today itself. There is only a
matter of interpretation which this Court has clarified.
The
petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the
case of the petitioner forthwith for appointing him on the post of
Assistant Teacher Urdu Language.
Order Date :- 26.3.2014/RKM.
