सरकारी नौकरी शिक्षक भर्ती/नियुक्ति परिणाम / टीईटी Sarkari Naukri Recruitment/Appointment Result. Latest/Updated News - UPTET, CTET, BETET, RTET, APTET, TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) Merit/Counselling for Primary Teacher(PRT) of various state government including UP, Bihar
LT GRADE UP News - PCM candidates ,साइंस विषय पढ़ाने के पात्र, बायोलॉजी स्नातक की याचिका खारिज
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9682 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. While entertaining this petition following orders were passed on 10.4.2018:- "Grievance is that those who have taken Botany, Zoology and Chemistry as subjects in their graduation are not being permitted to apply for the post of Science Teacher. Contention is that the petitioner also has Science background and has passed his graduation with Chemistry. Argument is that petitioner is eligible to apply for appointment as Science Teacher, but in view of the eligibility specified in the advertisement, he cannot do so. Submission is that the advertisement is arbitrary. Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent may obtain instructions in the matter. Put up tomorrow i.e. on 11.4.2018 as fresh, showing the name of Sri Avanish Tripathi also as counsel for the respondent." Sri P. K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 3, as well as Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have obtained instructions. It is pointed out that subjects advertised for recruitment includes Science and Biology separately. The qualification for appointment to Science subject is� graduation in physics, chemistry and maths while for the Biology the required qualification is Botany, Zoology and Chemistry. It is contended that petitioner is eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher in Biology, but he cannot be permitted to apply for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Science. The qualification specified in advertisement is in accordance with the amended Rules of 2016, which is not under challenge. Petitioner admittedly has not had physics as one of the subjects at the graduation level, which is necessary and is to be taught to the students in class IX and X. The insistence by the authorities for the applicant to possess qualification of physics, chemistry and maths is not shown to be irrational or contrary to the rules. Once that be so, petitioner cannot claim right to apply for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Science. Petitioner's right to apply for Biology is otherwise available in case he fulfils other requisites. In such circumstances, no interference in the matter is accordingly called for. Writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2018 Ashok Kr. UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
LT GRADE TGT Computer के लिए B Ed अनिवार्य नहीं, हालांकि अभी सिर्फ याची को राहत दी कोर्ट ने - -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9688 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Petitioner possesses qualification of MCA whereas the requirement under the advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Computer is a B.Tech./B.E. (in Computer Science) or B.Sc. in Computer Science or B.Sc. in Computer Application or Bachelor of Computer Application or Bachelor's Degree with 'A' Level course from NIELIT. Contention is that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is in accordance with the Regulations framed by the NCTE, and therefore, the respondents would not be justified in denying right of consideration to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that similar controversy has been entertained in Service Single No.8175 of 2018 in which following order was passed:- "Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notices for respondents no. 1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas notices for respondent no. 3 have been received by Sri Ashok Shukla, Advocate. By means of this petition the petitioner has submitted that they be permitted to submit application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.3.2018 and declare the petitioner to be eligible for being considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) possessing M.C.A. degree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the qualification so fixed by the State Government by means of U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service (IVth Amendment) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2016) is in violation of the qualification so fixed by the Central Government by means of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be Recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-Primary, Primary, Upper-Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Maharashrta vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shiksha Shastra Mahavidyalaya reported in 2006(9) SCC 1 wherein vide para 48 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that with a view to achieve the object, National Council for Teachers Education has been established and it is not open to the State legislature to encroach upon the provisions so fixed by the Central Government. The relevant para no. 48 is being reproduced herein below: "48. In the instant case, admittedly, parliament has enacted 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object. National council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List i of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on 'policy consideration'." Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 63 of 2003: State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Federation of Indian Polytechnic Teachers Organisation & Anr. wherein this Court in identical circumstances has held that any Rule so framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India if the same is contrary to the recommendations made by the AICTE would not be enforceable. The relevant para is being reproduced herein below: "The legal position with regard to recommendations of AICTE in pursuance to the provisions of the Act is not in dispute. The judgments of the Apex Court in Adhiniyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors. (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (Supra) still hold the field. The recommendations under Section 10(1)(a) to (v) of the act 1997 laying down norms and standards for ensuring guaranteed and integrated development of technical and management education have more than persuasive value. The State Government bound by the Central legislation do not have liberty to ignore the recommendations. The Rules of 1990 framed by the State of U.P. under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India and Regulation of 1996 framed under the U.P. Technical Education Act, 1962, after enforcement of the Act of 1987 contrary to the recommendations made by AICTE are unforceable." Per contra learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the Rules, 2016 whereby the qualification has been fixed, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, if any rule etc. has been made by the State Government against the Rules / Act framed by the Central Government, the same would be void from the very beginning, therefore, said Rules, 2016 has not been assailed. It would be open for the counsel for the State-respondents to take this plea while filing counter affidavit and the said submission of counsel for the State-respondents would be considered at the stage of final hearing. However, in view of the above, the matter requires consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 10 days. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. In the meantime, the petitioners may be permitted provisionally, to deposit the examination fee and submit the application form. It is needless to say that the aforesaid interim relief shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition." Matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 has been accepted by learned Standing Counsel, whereas Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Advocate, has appeared for respondent no.2. All respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within a week thereafter. List thereafter. Following the order passed in Service Single No.8175 of 2018 and� for the reasons recorded therein, it is provided that petitioner shall be permitted provisionally to appear in the examination by depositing examination fee and submit examination form, but his candidature shall be subject to the outcome of the present petition.� . Order Date :- 11.4.2018 Ashok Kr. UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
सीतापुर में कार्यरत शिक्षिका के पति नोयडा में कार्यरत हैं, 2 वर्ष का बच्चा है, नोयडा स्थानांतरण याचिका पर सचिव को 3 महीने के अंदर निर्णय लेने का आदेश - -
?Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9548 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Kalpana Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Sharma,Satendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Sharma,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Petitioner is seeking her transfer from the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalay Shaidapur, District Sitapur to Gautam Buddh Nagar, on account of various personal difficulties. It is stated that petitioner's husband is working at Gautam Buddh Nagar, and she has to take care of her two year old daughter. Reliance is placed upon Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008. Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 which deals with the transfer of teachers reads thus: "8(2)(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter- district transfers in respect of male and felmale teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district."� (emphasis supplied)� It is submitted that despite various representations made, petitioner's grievance has not been considered so far. Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that petitioner's grievance shall be considered, in accordance with law. Considering the above, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach respondent no.2, alongwith certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today. The concerned authority shall examine the petitioner's grievance, with reference to the aforesaid rule, and in accordance with the policy prevalent, by means of a reasoned speaking order, within a further period of three months, thereafter. Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Anil UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
बिभा की तर्ज पर महिला ट्रांसफर की याचिका, कोर्ट ने सचिव को रिप्रेजेंटेशन पर 6 हफ्ते के अंदर जवाब देने को कहा - - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9551 of 2018 Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali,Syed Nadeem Ahmad Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She is presently posted at Junior Basic School, at Maharajganj. Her husband is posted as Manufacturing Chemist at Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Ghosi, Mau. She has made a representation for her transfer from Maharajganj to Mau, where her husband is posted. A copy of her application is on the record as annexure-5 to the writ petition. This Court in the case of Bibha Singh Kushawaha v. U.P. Basic Education, Board, Allahabad and 3 Others, Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017 has passed an order directing the respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. Relevant part of the said order reads as under: "I have heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 have been framed under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The Rule 8(d) provides as under: "(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district." From a reading of the aforesaid Rule it is evident that under the special circumstances an application of a female teacher can be entertained for her transfer at the place of residence of her husband or in-law's district. In such cases the requirement of five years of posting has been relaxed. It is a well settled law that the Government Order cannot supplant the law, it can only supplement it. Indisputably, an executive order cannot override the Rules which have been framed by the rule making authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Act. In case of any inconsistency with the delegated legislation, executive instructions or the Government Order, the Rule cannot be ignored. The same issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in R.B. Dixit (supra) in the following terms: "6. We have held in Smart Chip v. State of U.P., 2002 (49) ALR 419, that in every legal system there is a hierarchy of norms as noted by the eminent jurist Kelson in his Pure Theory of Law. In the Indian Legal System this hierarchy is as follows: 1. The Constitution. 2. Statutory law, which may either be made by the Parliament or by the State legislature. 3. Delegated legislation, which may be either in the form of Rules, Regulations or Statutes made under the Act. 4. Executive instructions or Government Orders. 7. In the above hierarchy if there is conflict between a higher law and a lower law then the higher law will prevail. The executive instructions are part of the fourth layer in the hierarchy, which is at the lowest level, whereas an Act is part of the second layer and the Statutes made under the Act are delegated legislation and hence part of the third layer. The letters dated 31.8.1998 and 30.3.1999 are only executive instructions and hence they belong to the fourth layer. Hence they are neither Act nor Statutes. Hence in our opinion the age of retirement of an employee of the Indian Institute of technology is 60 years and not 62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the decision in Raja Ram Verma's case." This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Sarita Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 7096 of 2010, decided on 30.7.2010. The Court had occasion to deal with the similar arguments and at that time a Government order was issued imposing certain restrictions on transfer. The Court has expressed its view in the following terms: "The ban is general in nature. However, the provision of transfer for the purposes of placing husband and wife in the same district is a special provision which will normally prevail upon general temporary restriction on transfer. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad is directed to decide the matter ignoring the ban order dated 6.6.2009. The decision shall be taken positively within three weeks from today." It is trite that in most of the services of the Central Government and the State Governments, there is provision in their transfer policy that an endeavour should be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place. In view of the said principle, under the Rules 2008 the provision of the couple posting has been incorporated. The intention of rule making authority is very clear and it needs no elaboration. Relevant it would be to mention that in transfer policy of State Government for Government employees there is provision only for husband and wife but in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 the in-laws of the female teachers have also been included. Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order. For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no legal bar in considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008. Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs." This writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra). Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the second respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.2.2018, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Anil *********** HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9288 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Neetu Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Narayan Yadav,Achchhey Lal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. It is stated that facts of the present case are similar to one occurred in Writ Petition No.2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and Others Vs. State of U.P.), decided on 6.2.2018. Petitioner claims that she has been married to one Arun Yadav, who is staying at Allahabad, and therefore, the case of transfer of petitioner is otherwise covered by Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers Posting) Rules, 2008. Considering the above, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the authority concerned to examine the petitioner's grievance, keeping in view the observations made in Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra) and also Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008. Order Date :- 3.4.2018 Anil UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
किन कारणों से शिक्षक ट्रांसफर आवेदन निरस्त हुए , BSA बदायूं लिस्ट जारी - - निम्न लिस्ट सोशल मीडिया से प्राप्त हुई कि- फर्जी असाध्य रोग, सास ससुर की बीमारी का सर्टिफिकेट, 1 बार ट्रांसफर का लाभ पहले ही लेने वाले, SIT की जांच वाले , 5 साल से कम सर्विस वाले पुरुष इत्यादि तमाम कैंडिडेट्स के आवेदन निरस्त किये हैं, और जवाब मांगा है।
शिक्षक तबादले में फर्जी बीमारी का बोलबाला, बेसिक के सत्यापन पर सवाल जोइनिंग डेट 1916, 2018 कैसे, सरकारी नोकरी में इतने सारे पति पत्नी, 20-30 साल से ऊपर की सेवा वाले पहले कभी ट्रांसफर नहीं करा पाए क्या -
News - मानदेय कर्मियों को भी मेटरनिटी लीव का लाभ -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9275 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, this Court has already disposed of Writ Petition No.62267 of 2017 (Akanksha Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others), vide following orders passed on 21.12.2017:- "Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1and 3. The petitioner in the writ petition is claiming maternity leave. According to her she applied for maternity leave w.e.f. 20.12.2017. In respect of her claim, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 30.10.2017, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, before the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad through the Principal, Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Amethi Jadid, Block Barhpur, District Farrukhabad, under receiving which has been forwarded by the Principal to the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Government order dated 22.12.2015, which is applicable in the case of honorary teachers, being paid honorarium of the post graduate colleges and submits that the petitioner is also entitled to maternity leave. A similar matter came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Female Workers reported in 2000 LawSuit (SC) 487 wherein the Supreme Court referring to Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women adopted by the United Nations on 18.12.1979 has held that the principles laid down in Article 11 thereof must be read into the contract of service of the women employees employed in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Paragraph 34 of the judgment reads as under:- "Delhi is the capital of India. No other City or Corporation would be more conscious than the City of Delhi that India is a signatory to various International covenants and treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10th of December, 1948, set in motion the universal thinking that human rights are supreme and ought to be preserved at all costs. This was followed by a series of Conventions. On 18th of December, 1979, the United Nations adopted the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women". Article 11 of this Convention provides as under:- "Article 11 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular; (a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings; (b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment; (c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational train-ing and recurrent training; (d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work; (e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retire-ment, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave. (f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of repro-duction. 2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures : (a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimi-nation in dismissals on the basis of marital status; (b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and develop-ment of a network of child-care facilities; (d) To provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them. 3. Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary." It is not disputed that the conditions which are applicable to the contractual women employees would also be applicable in the case of the present petitioner and any act to the contrary would amount to discrimination against women employees. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2-District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office. The petitioner shall also provide a copy of the application dated 30.10.2017 along with certified copy of this order to respondent no.5." Facts being similar, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms. Order Date :- 3.4.2018 Anil UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
UPTET News - 72825 में बचे हुए पदों पर याचियों को रिप्रेजेंटेशन देने को कहा, शासन कानूनानुसार निस्तारित करे - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9248 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Sharma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. It is stated that in similar facts and circumstances this Court had disposed of Writ Petition No.6400 of 2018 vide following order passed on 22.2.2018:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Devendra Kumar Pandey and 55 others are before this Court to issue direction to the respondents to complete the recruitment process for remaining 1536 posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and issue appointment letters in their favour in the light of decision of Apex Court dated 25.7.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 (State of UP and ors vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others). Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have already filed a representation dated 8.2.2018 before the respondent no.2 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow for redressal of their grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that the petitioners' representation dated 8.2.2018 may be considered by the appropriate authority. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents has no objection to the said prayer. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow to decide the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him." Facts being similar, this writ petition is also disposed of with the observation that in case petitioners make a representation in respect of their grievance before respondent no.2, the same shall be got examined by the authority concerned, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of making of representation. Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Ashok Kr. UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
