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
Interdistrict Transfer News - कल ट्रांसफर की लिस्ट जारी होगी - सोशल मीडिया पर नीचे दी गई जानकारी वायरल हो रही है। अगर यह सही है तो ये भी हो सकता है कि मुख्यमंत्री जी स्वयं ऑनलाइन ट्रांसफर लिस्ट का बटन दबाएं
UPTET News - जजमेंट एनालिसिस 29334 भर्ती मामले में - ये जजमेंट एंजेलिसिस सोशल मीडिया पर शेयर की जा रही है, जिसको किसी ने अपने हिसाब से तोड़ा मरोड़ा भी है, 2 जजों ने फैसला दिया है किसी एक जज ने नहीं एनालिसिस में अपनी राय रखते हुए किसी व्यक्ति ने इसको सुप्रीम कोर्ट में फैसला पलटने वाला बता दिया कहा कि टेट रिज़ल्ट से पहले बी एड / बी टी सी का रिजल्ट टेट परिक्षा की गाइड लाइंस में नहीं है सिर्फ एपीयरिंग है | हालाँकि यह बात सही की टेट परीक्षा गाइडलेंस में बी एड / बी टी सी का रिजल्ट पहले आना चाहिए इस पर कुछ देखने क नहीं मिला , लेकिन 2 जजों की बेंच ने इसको परिभाषित किया - कहा की सिर्फ बी एड / बी टी सी एपीयरिंग में तो टेट का सर्टिफिकेट पहले एवार्ड हो जायेगा , और बी एड / बी टी सी में बाद में कोई फेल हो गया , या फिर एपीयरिंग होता रहा और फेल होता रहा तो उसका टेट सर्टिफिकेट कैसे वेलिड होगा , और इन कारणों से 2 जजों की बेंच ने बी एड / बी टी सी एपीयरिंग के साथ उत्तीर्ण होना टेट रिजल्ट जारी होने की तिथि से पहले जरुरी बता दिया | हो सकता है सुप्रीम कोर्ट में फैसला पलट भी जाये (वैसे भी यह सब पहले क्लियर होना चाहिए ) यह मामला हज़ारों लोगों की नौकरी पर संकट है 72825 , 10000 बी टी सी भर्ती , 15000 बी टी सी भर्ती , उर्दू वालों की भर्ती ,16800 बी टी सी भर्ती, 29334 जूनियर साइंस मैथ शिक्षक भर्ती तमाम पर प्रभाव डालेगा , साथ ही जब तक इस मामले पर स्टे नहीं आता , ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों का ट्रांसफर भी अटक गया है , क्योंकि नियुक्ति रद्द करने के आदेश हैं तो ट्रांसफर कैसे होंगे
[Judgment Analysis] टेट को प्रशिक्षण योग्यता से पहले पास करने वालो को नौकरी से निकालने वाले आदेश काविश्लेषण . 1) यह निर्णय Division Bench से 29334 के सम्बंध में आया है जिसमें BSA को निर्देशित किया गया है कि वे 29334 में चयनित ऐसे लोगो की पहचान करें जिनका BTC, B.Ed. का Result उनके द्वारा भर्ती में लगाये गए टेट रिजल्ट के बाद में आया हो तथा उनकी सफाई सुनने का एक अवसर देकर उन्हें नौकरी से निकाल दें। (SPLA 506/18) यानी 30.05.2018 के बाद से उन सभी के टेट इनवैलिड हो गए हैं जिनका बीएड बीटीसी का रिजल्ट टेट के रिजल्ट के बाद आया हो। . . *2) किसी अन्य भर्ती को लेकर यह निर्णय नहीं है लेकिन इस बात की संभावना से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि BSA 72825 समेत उसके बाद होने वाली सभी भर्तियो को भी कसौटी पर घिस सकते हैं और इस सम्बंध में परिषद द्वारा निर्देश आ सकते हैं।* . . 3) इस निर्णय के आने के पीछे 2 फैक्टर्स हैं- . ● Statuory Provision - NCTE सर्कुलर 11.02.2011 का क्लॉज़ 5(i) और (ii) + शासनादेश 15.05.2013 . ● विभिन्न याचिकाएं - 26660/2013, 27036/2016, 52021/2017, . . *4) इसके अलावा जो इंपोर्टेन्ट रोल प्ले करता है वो है डॉक्ट्रिन ऑफ purposive interpretation और literal interpretation.* . . 5) अभी तक 4 जजेस ए पी शाही, अश्वनी मिश्रा, दिलीप गुप्ता और जयंत बनर्जी purposive interpretation के साथ गए हैं न कि literal इंटरप्रिटेशन के और अब गेंद सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पाले में जाएगी। . . *6) RTE एक्ट 2009 के द्वारा केंद सरकार ने NCTE को अकेडमिक अथॉरिटी बनाया जो 8 से 14 वर्ष के स्टूडेंट्स को पढ़ाने के लिए सहायक अध्यापकों की मिनिमम योग्यता तय करेगी।* . . 7) NCTE ने 23.08.2010 को नोटिफिकेशन जारी करके न्यूनतम अकेडमिक योग्यता तय कर दी जिसमें टेट क्वालीफाई कम्पलसरी था। . . *8) टेट के लिए NCTE ने 11.02.2011 को एक सर्कुलर जारी किया जिसमें क्लॉज़ 5(ii) में कहा गया कि वो व्यक्ति भी टेट में बैठने के लिए योग्य होंगे जो 23.08.2010 के नोटिफकेशन में उल्लिखित NCTE या RCI से मान्यता प्राप्त किसी अध्यापक शिक्षण कोर्स 'pursue' कर रहे हों यानी अध्यन्नरत हों।* . . 9) यानी टेट में बैठने के लिए बीएड बीटीसी डीएड आदि पास होना ही कंपल्सरी नहीं है बल्कि उन कोर्स में पढ़ रहे भी इस क्लॉज़ 5(ii) अनुसार योग्य है। . . *10) इस क्लॉज़ में यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया कि क्या फर्स्ट ईयर में पढ़ने वाले या यूं कहें कि जो अंतिम सेमेस्टर में नहीं है या अंतिम वर्ष में नहीं है वो टेट में appear हो सकते हैं या नहीं।* . . 11) सरकार द्वारा 17.04.2013 को टेट के सम्बंध में गाइडलाइन्स जारी की गई थी जिसमें केवल प्रशिक्षण योग्यता उत्तीर्ण लोगो को ही टेट में बैठने की अनुमति थी। . . *12) इस क्लॉज़ 5(ii) को ग्राउंड बनाकर इस GO को चैलेंज किया गया जिसमें 13.05.2013 को रिट याचिका - A 26660/2013 में कोर्ट ने कहा कि जब NCTE ने प्रावधान किया हुआ है तो आप क्यों नहीं कर रहे और फाइनल ईयर में पढ़ रहे तथा रिजल्ट का वेट कर रहे अभ्यर्थियों को भी शामिल करने का आदेश किया।* . . 13) सरकार ने दो दिन बाद ही 15.05.2013 को सुधार करते हुए नया GO जारी किया जिसमें बिंदु (क) और (ख) के द्वारा शिक्षण प्रशिक्षण परीक्षाओं में सम्मिलित हो रहे अभ्यर्थियों को भी टेट में बैठने के लिए allow कर दिया। साथ मे यह भी कहा कि टेट में बैठ तो जाओ और पास भी करलो लेकिन वैलिड तभी होगा जब बीटीसी बीएड आदि पास करलोगे। . . *14) इसमें भी स्थिति को स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया। 29334 भर्ती को इसी ग्राउंड पर कुछ अभ्यर्थी कोर्ट ले गए जिसमें 08.05.2018 को हाई कोर्ट ने फर्स्ट ईयर या सेकंड सेमेस्टर पास न करने वालों को टेट मे बैठने से अयोग्य घोषित कर दिया है। (Writ- A 52021/17)* . . 15) सिंगल जज मिश्रा जी ने जो आलरेडी नियुक्त हो चुके हैं उनको सीधा सीधा बाहर करने का आदेश नहीं किया था बल्कि उनके लिए कोर्ट ने कहा था कि RTI एक्ट द्वारा ऐसे लोगो की जानकारी ली जा सकती है जो टेट में फर्स्ट ईयर को पास किये बिना बैठे हैं। . . *16) और BSA को यदि ऐसे लोगो को नियुक्ति से हटाने को लेकर प्रत्यावेदन मिलते हैं तो 6 माह के अंदर उचित कार्यवाही की जाए यानी उनकी नियुक्ति निरस्त की जाए।* . . 17) इस निर्णय में भार याचियों पर डाल दिया गया कि वो पता लगाएं की टेट को फर्स्ट ईयर में रहते हुए किसने पास किया है और BSA को शिकायत करें तब जाकर कार्यवाही होगी। इसके विरुद्ध याची DB चले गए और कहा कि हमारे लिए यह सम्भव नहीं है यह कार्य BSA को करना चाहिए। . . *18) खण्ड पीठ ने अपने 30.05.2018 के निर्णय में यह मांग मानली और बोल दिया कि यह काम BSA ही करेंगे न कि याची। अब तक तो सब ठीक था सिंगल जज के निर्णय के बाद फाइनल ईयर में टेट पास वाले जश्न मना रहे थे कि हम तो बच गए पर DB ने उनके जश्न को मातम में बदल दिया।* . . 19) DB ने एक कदम आगे बढ़ते हुए कहा कि ट्रेनिंग क्वालिफिकेशन जैसे बीएड BTC का फाइनल रिजल्ट टेट के रिजल्ट से पहले आजाना चाहिए तभी वैलिड माना जायेगा ये बिल्कुल unacceptable जजमेंट है और सुप्रीम कोर्ट में इस एक्सटेंट तक पलटना कन्फर्म्ड है। . . *20) जैसा हमने पहले भी कहा कि ये आदेश क्लॉज़ 5(ii) को purposively इन्टरप्रेट करके किये गए हैं। इसमें 5(ii) को (i) के साथ रखकर पढ़ा गया है।* . . 21) 5(i) में कहा गया कि ट्रेनिंग में पास हुए लोग योग्य हैं दूसरे में कहा कि जो पढ़ रहे हैं वो भी योग्य हैं अब इसी दूसरे में pursuing शब्द को literally interpret किया जाता है तो training में एडमिशन का पहला दिन भी pursuing में आएगा। . . *22) इंटेंशन NCTE का वही रहा होगा जो जज साहब कह रहे हैं लेकिन शब्दो के चयन को लेकर NCTE ने गलती करदी अब उस गलती का खामियाजा नियुक्त भुगतने के कगार पर हैं।* . . 23) कुछ केसेस में SC ने कहा है कि यह कोर्ट का काम नहीं है कि वह STATUTORY प्रोविशन की इंटेंशन को वहां इन्टरप्रेट करे जहां स्पेसिफक शब्द USE किये गए हों और जिनका स्पष्ट मतलब निकलता हो। . . *24) वहीं कुछ केसेस में कहा है कि यदि कोई प्रोविशन केवल हड्डी हड्डी है तो उसपर मांस और स्किन चढ़ाने का कार्य कोर्ट कर सकती है।* . . 25) यही कोर्ट की पोलीवोकल नेचर है अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट में निम्न सम्भावनाएं हैं- . ● *कोर्ट purposive इंटरप्रिटेशन के साथ जाते हुए DB के ऑर्डर को हल्का सा मॉडिफाई करके उपहेल्ड करे। मॉडिफाई बस वहां होगा जहां उन्होंने कहा है कि टेट के रिजल्ट से पहले BTC बीएड का रिजल्ट आ जाना चाहिए और कहदें कि जिनका फर्स्ट ईयर पास किये बिना टेट है उनको निकालो बाहर।* . ● कोर्ट literally interpret करे और बोले कि हम पालिसी मेकर नहीं है यदि NCTE PURSUING को टेट में बैठा रही है तो हम कुछ नहीं कर सकते जब NCTE PURSUING कह रही है तो आप लोग क्यों फाइनल और फर्स्ट के चक्कर मे फंसे हो। इस तरह सबको यहां तक कि फर्स्ट सेम में भी टेट पास करने वालो को बचा ले। . ● *कोर्ट purposively जाए लेकिन कहे कि 23.08.2010 के नोटिफिकेशन के हिसाब से ये टेट पास कर चुके हैं और trained भी हैं तथा काफी समय से अच्छी सर्विस दे रहे हैं तो कोर्ट इन्हें डिस्टर्ब नहीं कर रही है लेकिन NCTE को निर्देश देती है कि वे इस 5(ii) को redefine करके संशोधित करे ताकि भविष्य में ऐसी गलती न हो।* . . 26) अब कोर्ट किस रूख के साथ जाती है यह कोई नहीं बता सकता हालांकि याची और प्रतिवादी अपनी अपनी जीत के दावे करेंगे ही जीतेगा कौन ये कोर्ट decide करेगी क्योंकि यह यहां से अब डिस्क्रेशनरी मेटर बन चुका है और किस बेंच में जाता है इस पर निर्भर करेगा क्योंकि ऐसे मामलों में जजेस का सोचने का नजरिया अलग अलग होता है। 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 Junior 29334 Breaking News - सिर्फ बी एड बी टी सी अंतिम वर्ष के अभ्यर्थी टेट देने व सफल होने पात्र, गणित विज्ञान से स्नातक को सही रूप से नियुक्ति देने की जिम्मेदारी बी एस ए को, सभी गलत नियुक्तियां रद्द करने के आदेश :- गाइड लाइन में सिर्फ टेट एपियरिंग था, जिसकी कोर्ट ने व्याख्या करते हुए कहा कि एपोइंटमेंट लेटर से पहले में सफल भी होना चाहिए बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग का मानना था कि जिन्होंने बी एड / बी टी सी में एडमिशन लिया है वे सभी टेट देने के पात्र हैं, जबकि NCTE/कोर्ट ऑर्डर का कहना है कि टीचर ट्रेनिंग कोर्स के अंतिम वर्ष वाले टेट देने के पात्र हैं The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub-section." According to the appellants only such persons who are appearing in the teacher training course examination would be considered eligible to appear, while according to the respondents a person who has been admitted to the teacher training course would be considered eligible for appearing in the TET. The judgement rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 26660 of 2013 (Rambabu Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was relied upon by the learned Judge to arrive at a conclusion that "only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination." The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must has passed TET after completing training course or such persons were in the final year of their training examination. A person, who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be issued any appointment order. important is that such persons should have been declared successful in the teachers training course before the date on which the examination result of TET is declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not passed the qualifying examination. मतलब की टेट का रिजल्ट डिक्लेयर होने के साथ बी एड / बी टी सी में पास होने चाहिए ऑर्डर का ऑपरेटिंग पार्ट:- It should, in our opinion, not be left to the writ petitioners to find the out the names of such persons. It is the District Basic Education Officer who should carry out the exercise. Of course, as indicated in the impugned judgement, the appointments of persons who are not eligible but who appeared in the TET examination should be cancelled after providing an opportunity to such persons. The judgement and order impugned in the Special Appeals is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above and the Special Appeals are disposed of. सभी गलत नियुक्तियों को रद्द करने के आदेश , जो लोग अयोग्य थे, लेकिन टेट एग्जाम में शामिल हुए, उनको एक मौका/मतलब उनका प्रत्यावेदन लेकर जांचा जाए, और अयोग्य अभ्यर्थियों की नियुक्ति रद्द कर दी जाए
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 10 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 506 of 2018 Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar Verma And 53 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 33 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Dhananjay Awasthi With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 514 of 2018 Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar And Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Mangla Prasad Rai,Raghvendra Pratap Singh With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 508 of 2018 Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Bind And 57 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anoop Trivedi,Manu Singh,Pankaj Kumar Singh,Ras Bihari Pradhan,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Badan,Vibhu Rai,Virendra Chaubey With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 515 of 2018 Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla And 12 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Devi Dayal,Dhananjay Awasthi,Mangla Prasad Rai,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Virendra Chaubey With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 516 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra And 260 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 54 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Deo Dayal,Dhananjay Awasthi,Mangla Prasad Rai,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Rijwan Ali Akhtar,Virendra Chaubey With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 518 of 2018 Appellant :- Divya Prakash Mishra And 4 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anoop Trivedi,Dhananjay Awasthi,Manu Singh,Rijwan Ali Akhtar,Shiv Badan,Vibhu Rai,Virendra Chaubey Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. These Special Appeals have been filed to assail the judgement and order dated 8 May 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court to a limited extent. The issue that has arisen for determination in the aforesaid Special Appeals is regarding interpretation of Clause 5(ii) of the eligibility conditions for appearing in the Teachers Eligibility Test1 contained in the circular issued by the National Counsel for Teacher Education on 11 February 2011. It declares that the following persons shall be eligible in the TET: "5. The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET: i.A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010. ii.A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010. iii.The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub-section." According to the appellants only such persons who are appearing in the teacher training course examination would be considered eligible to appear, while according to the respondents a person who has been admitted to the teacher training course would be considered eligible for appearing in the TET. The judgement rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 26660 of 2013 (Rambabu Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was relied upon by the learned Judge to arrive at a conclusion that "only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination." A direction has accordingly been issued which is reproduced below: "In view of the interpretation given to the word "pursuing" by this Court, which stands implemented vide Government Order dated 15th of May, 2013, it is clear that only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone, would be entitled to appear in the TET examination. The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must has passed TET after completing training course or such persons were in the final year of their training examination. A person, who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be issued any appointment order. The State Government shall implement its Government Order of 15th of May, 2013 and circulars would be issued for its strict compliance by the appointing authorities. The appointing authorities shall also clearly state such fact in the appointment letter issued to the candidates appointed as Assistant Teachers." It transpires that certain persons who were in the final year of the teachers' training course were granted permission to appear in the TET examination and on the basis of the certificates issued to them, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the various institutions. Liberty was, therefore, granted to the petitioners to challenge such specific appointments before the appointing authority, who was then directed examine such individual grievance on facts after affording opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates. It transpires from the records that the last date for submission of the forms for appearing at the TET examination was 18 October 2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result was declared on 25 November 2011. The issue that arises for consideration is that who would be eligible to appear in the TET examination. As noticed above, under sub-clause (i) of Clause 5 of the circular, a person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010 would be eligible. Under sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5, a person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010 would also be eligible. We are not concerned with the eligibility declared under sub-clause (i). What sub-clause (ii) provides is that a person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses would also be eligible. A learned Judge of this Court in case of Rambabu Vishwakarma observed as follows: "The words "pursuing any of the teacher education course" occurring in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. have been pointed out by Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. To my mind, the same reflects the extension of such a facility to those candidates who have appeared in the final exams of their teacher education course or whose results are awaited at the final stage. This may not be for those who have just taken admission in a teacher education course/training course requiring completion in a year or two. This facility, like in the case of engineering or medical entrance test, where the candidate has already appeared in his 10+2 exams and is awaiting results, and is also eligible to appear in the entrance test is, therefore, to help such candidates who are to finally wrap up their teacher education course. Thus, the respondents are not to loose anything or prejudice any cause. To the contrary, this would be a correct way of implementing the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. Accordingly, a certified copy of this order shall be placed by the learned Standing Counsel before the State Government namely Principal Secretary (Basic Education) who shall forthwith convene a meeting in this respect and take notice of the said Eligibility conditions prescribed in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. And issue an appropriate instruction or Government Order in the event it is found that the petitioners are also entitled to appear in the examinations according to the above mentioned guidelines by extending the date for filling up of the application forms accordingly. A certified copy of this order shall be provided within 24 hours to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for being communicated to the said authority for taking appropriate steps within a week. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly." It transpires that pursuant to the aforesaid judgement, a Government Order was issued by the State on 15 May 2013 and the same is reproduced below: "bl laca/k esa eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k ds ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa vU; vgZrkvkas ds lkFk izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vkosnu gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izf'k{k.kjr@ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks jgs (appearing / pursuing) vH;FkhZ f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k esa vkosnu djus gsrq vgZ ugha gSA blls {kqC/k gksdj dfri; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.kjr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk mudh f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dk volj iznku fd;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ csap] y[kuÅ esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3100¼,e0,l0½@2013 fouksn dqekj flag cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; rFkk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 25670@2013 lq'khy dqekj flag o vU; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; ;ksftr dh x;hA mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vUrfje vkns'k@fVIi.kh ds n`f"Vxr izdj.k ij iqufoZpkj fd;k x;kA lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kklu }kjk fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%& ¼d½ 'kklukns'k la[;k 946@15&11&2013&2750@2012 fnukad 17 vizSy] 2013 rFkk dk;kZy; Kki la[;k & 1018@15&11&2013] fnukad 28] vizSy] 2013 ds Øe esa mRrj izns'k f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk ds ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk ds vUrxZr izkfo/kkfur f'k{kd&izf'k{k.k vgZrk esa f'k{kd & izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksus ds lkFk&lkFk f'k{kd & izf'k{k.k ijh{kkvksa esa lfEefyr gks jgs vH;FkhZ Hkh f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k esa vkosnu gsrq vgZ ekus tk;sxsA ¼[k½ ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkSicfU/kd :i ls bl 'krZ ds v/khu f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxk fd mudk f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk dk izek.k&i= lEcfU/kr f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksus ij gh ekU; gksxkA ¼x½ ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd@izf'k{k.k vgZrk,a rFkk f'k{kd&izf'k{k.k vgZrk ¼fnukad & 11&08&1997 ds iwoZ ds eksvfYye&,&mnwZ mikf/k/kkjd½ ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA" It is on reading of the aforesaid provisions of Clause 5(ii) of the Notification and the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 that the learned Judge in the judgement impugned in the Special Appeal observed as follows: "In view of the notification issued by the NCTE dated 11th of February, 2011, as well as the Government Order issued on 15th of May, 2013, the inescapable conclusion culled out from the provision is that only those persons are eligible to appear in the TET examination who have acquired academic and professional qualification and have either obtained training qualification or are pursuing any of the teacher education courses." A perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11 February 2011 issued by the NCTE clearly indicates that a person who is pursuing any of the teachers' training courses specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23 August 2010 would also be eligible. It appears to us that this benefit was considered to be given to such candidates whose teacher training course result had not been declared by the last date specified for filling the online form for TET examination. That is why, such persons who were pursuing the teacher training course could appear at the TET examination. In our opinion "pursuing any of the teacher training course" should not be restricted only to such persons who were actually appearing in the examination of the teacher training course. It should also include such persons who have studying in the course but examination had not been held. But what is important is that such persons should have been declared successful in the teachers training course before the date on which the examination result of TET is declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not passed the qualifying examination. This clause merely facilitates such person to appear at the TET examination even if the result of the teacher training course has not been declared. This interpretation would subserve the purpose for which such persons were considered eligible. To give any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of the facility that has been provided to such persons. In support of this interpretation it would be appropriate to refer to the schedule that was placed before the Court for the 2011 examination. The last date for filling the application was 18 October 2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result was declared on 25 November 2011. The case of the appellants is that persons whose result of the teacher training course has not been declared by 25 November 2011 were issued certificates and on the basis of the certificates they were appointed. According to them the result of the teacher training course was declared on March 2012. The Government Order dated 15 May 2013 on which reliance has been placed merely seeks to implement the decision dated 13 May 2013 of this Court in Rambabu Vishwakarma. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed before the Court the condition contained in the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 as also the certificates that have been issued which contain a condition that the certificates would be valid only after the candidates are declared pass in the teachers' training course examination and that they have been permitted provisionally to appear in the TET examination. This condition contained in the Government Order dated 15 may 2013 or the condition contained in the certificate issued by the authority for clearing the TET examination would not make any difference to the meaning of the word "pursuing" which we have taken. It is also sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 or the appointments of the Assistant Teacher has not been challenged. This submission cannot be accepted. The prayers contained in Writ Petition No. 27036 of 2016 out of which Special Appeal No. 514 of 2018 arises are as follows: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the appointment of those candidates who have obtained the minimum eligibility i.e. Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2011 and the eligibility i.e. B.Ed./B.T.C. for appearing in TET has obtained in the year 2012. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 to declare the certificates of TET of all candidates who have not obtained the minimum eligibility degree i.e. B.T.C./B.Ed./V.B.T.C./B.Ed. before passing the TET examination; are invalid. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner being eligible for the aforesaid post." The prayers contained in Writ Petition No. 52021 of 2017 out of which Special Appeal No. 506 of 2018 arises are as follows: "(i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith dispense with the services of all such persons appointed as Assistant Teachers, Science/Mathematics for Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in pursuance to Government order dated 11.07.2013 including the respondent no. 7 to 34 who were ineligible for appearing in UP Teachers Eligibility Test 2011 as they have passed BTC training certificate/Bachelor of Education degree in the year 2012/2013 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court. (ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to undertook further counseling for filling up the remaining 3219 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers for Science/Mathematics in Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in State of UP in pursuance to Government order dated 11.07.2013 as also with regard to the vacancies caused by exclusion of ineligible candidates covered by prayer no.(i) of the present writ petition and to complete the said exercise within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court. (iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith grant appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Teacher of Science/Mathematics subject in senior basic school run by Board of Basic Education in State of UP, to permit the petitioner to function as such and to pay the petitioners their regular monthly salary on the said post, regularly, every month. (iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition." Another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the nature of the directions that have issued. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that a duty has been cast upon the petitioners to challenge the appointments not made in conformity with Clause 5(ii) before the District Basic Education Officer. The contention is that it is the duty of the District Basic Education Officer to examine all such appointments and determine whether the appointments of Assistant Teachers was in accordance with the eligibility requirement contained in Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11 February 2011, since, it would not be possible for the petitioners to actually find out the names of the Assistant Teachers who had been appointed de-hors the provisions contained in Clause 5(ii) of the Notification. This submission has also been made in connection with the directions issued by the learned Judge with regard to the persons who have passed graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects. It should, in our opinion, not be left to the writ petitioners to find the out the names of such persons. It is the District Basic Education Officer who should carry out the exercise. Of course, as indicated in the impugned judgement, the appointments of persons who are not eligible but who appeared in the TET examination should be cancelled after providing an opportunity to such persons. The judgement and order impugned in the Special Appeals is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above and the Special Appeals are disposed of. Order Date :- 30.5.2018 A. V. Singh (Dilip Gupta,J.) (Jayant Banerji,J.) 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,
