/* remove this */

Sunday, March 24, 2024

323 Personal Assistant Recruitment in Union Public Service Commission

 323 Personal Assistant Recruitment in Union Public Service Commission


कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम में नर्सिंग अधिकारी : 2024 और कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन में वैयक्तिक सहायक : 2024 के लिए आवेदन


  • Number of UPSC Recruitment: 323
  • Minimum Salary: Please check with the concerned authority or website
  • Last Date For UPSC Recruitment: 27/03/2024
  • UPSC Address: Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, DELHI 110069

Qualification:

  • Bachelor’s Degree from a recognized University.

Pay Scale:

  • Level- 07 in the Pay Matrix as per 7th CPC.

Age Limit:

  • 30 years.

How to Apply For UPSC vacancy:

    Visit For detailed information and for online through the website -https://www.upsconline.nic.in
  1. Link for apply registration - https://upsconline.nic.in/upsc/OTRP/index.php
  2. Applications received through any other mode would not be accepted and summarily rejected.
  3. Candidates need not upload any document except the latest photograph, signature, and identity proof while filling up the online application.
  4. IMPORTANT: CANDIDATES ARE ADVISED TO FILL THEIR CORRECT AND ACTIVE E-MAIL ADDRESSES IN THE ONLINE APPLICATION AS ALL CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE MADE BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH E-MAIL ONLY.
  5. After submitting the Online Application, the candidates are required to take out a printout of the finally submitted Online Recruitment Application.
  6. Modification in OTR Profile: In case the candidate wants to effect any change in his/her OTR profile, it shall be allowed only once in the lifetime after the registration at OTR platform. The change in OTR profile data shall be available till the expiry of 7 days from the next day after the closure of the application window of his/her first final application for any examination of the Commission. In case, the candidates after registration of OTR applies for the first time in the Recruitment Test (RT), the last date of modification of OTR would be 03.04.2024.
  7. Modification in the application form (other than OTR Profile): The Commission has also decided to extend the facility of making correction(s) in any field(s) of the application form for the Recruitment Test (RT) from the next day of the closure of the application window of the Recruitment Test (RT). This window will remain open for 7 days from the date of opening of the same, i.e. from 28.03.2024 to 03.04.2024. In case a candidate wants to carry out any change in his/her OTR profile during this period, then he/she should log in to the OTR platform and do the needful accordingly. In other words, no change in the OTR profile can be made by visiting the window for Modification in the application form.
  8. The candidates will not be allowed to withdraw their application after the submission of the same.
  9. The candidates are advised to submit the Online Application well in advance without waiting for the closing date.

General Instructions:

  1. CITIZENSHIP: A Candidate must be either:
    • (a) a citizen of India, or
    • (b) a subject of Nepal, or
    • (c) a subject of Bhutan, or
    • (d) a Tibetan refugee who came over to India before 1st January 1962 with the intention of permanently settling in India, or
    • (e) a person of Indian origin who has migrated from Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, or East African countries of Kenya, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika and Zanzibar), Zambia, Malawi, Zaire, Ethiopia, and Vietnam with the intention of permanently settling in India.
    Provided that a candidate belonging to categories (b), (c), (d), and (e) above shall be a person in whose favor a certificate of eligibility has been issued by the Government of India.



Sarkari Naukri Sarkari Naukri Damad India. Latest Upadted Indian Govt Jobs - http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com Published at http://sarkari-damad.blogspot.com (Click on the Labels below for more similar Jobs)
Read more...

Saturday, March 23, 2024

क्या बिना जूनियर टेट पास किये प्राइमरी शिक्षक प्रोमोशन पा सकते हैं ? कोर्ट : नहीं जूनियर टेट पास करना जरुरी होगा जूनियर टीचर प्रोमोशन के लिए , नियुक्ति तिथि से कोई मतलब नहीं No, Junior TET pass is must to get promotion

क्या बिना जूनियर टेट पास किये प्राइमरी शिक्षक प्रोमोशन पा सकते हैं ? कोर्ट : नहीं जूनियर टेट पास करना जरुरी होगा जूनियर टीचर प्रोमोशन के लिए  , नियुक्ति तिथि से कोई मतलब नहीं  No, Junior TET pass is must to get promotion


बगैर जूनियर टेट पास किये सर्विस में बने रहेंगे ,इंक्रीमेंट वगैरह मिलते रहेंगे , लेकिन- प्रोमोशन के लिए उपयुक्त टेट ( जूनियर टेट ) पास करना जरुरी है 

6.A reading of the above judgment would make it clear that any appointment made to Graduate Teacher / B.T. Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion


Madras High Court

T.Chitra Devi vs The Director Of School Education on 7 February, 2024

Author: R. Mahadevan

Bench: R. MahadevanMohammed Shaffiq

                                                                          W.A.No.392 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED 07.02.2024

                                                     CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
                                                      AND
                                  THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

                                               W.A.No.392 of 2024
                                                     AND
                                              C.M.P.No.2643 of 2024


                T.Chitra Devi                                         .. Appellant
                                                       Vs.

                1.The Director of School Education
                DPI Campus, College Road
                Chennai 600 006

                2.The Chief Educational Officer
                Kancheepuram District
                Kancheepuram

                3.The District Educational Officer
                St. Thomas Mount, Chrompet
                Kancheepuram District

                4.The Secretary
                Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School
                East Tambaram
                Chennai 600 059

                5.Teachers Recruitment Board
                Rep. by its Chairman
                College Road, Nungambakkam
                Chennai 600 006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/9
                                                                                   W.A.No.392 of 2024

                6.Union of India
                Rep. by its Secretary to Government
                Department of School Educational and Literacy
                Ministry of Human Resource development
                217-C, Shastri Bhawan
                New Delhi 110 001

                7.National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
                Rep. by its Member Secretary
                G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka
                New Delhi 110 075                                             .. Respondents
                          Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
                dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.34653 of 2019.
                                  For Appellant   : Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan
                                  For Respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru
                                                    Special Government Pleader (Education)


                                                     JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This writ appeal arises out of the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.34653 of 2019.

2.The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein, praying for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from insisting passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for her appointment as B.T. Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school on 15.06.2011 prior to issuance of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to continue to make payment of salary including annual increment, incentive and other service benefits.

3.It was the case of the appellant before the writ court that the fourth respondent school is a Government aided private school and she was appointed as B.T. Assistant (English) vide order dated 31.05.2011 and she joined duty in the 4th respondent School on 15.06.2011 against the sanctioned vacancy. While so, she was not paid any annual increment right from the date of her appointment and also not sanctioned incentive increment for her higher qualification. That apart, from August 2019, the 4th respondent had stopped the payment of salary to the appellant on the premise that she has to pass Teachers Eligibility Test (“TET” in short). According to the appellant, TET cannot be insisted in respect of appointments already made prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department dated 15.11.2011, and therefore, insisting upon passing of TET for paying salary and other benefits to the appellant is totally arbitrary and unreasonable.

4.Referring to the constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act” in short), Notification of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 Government of India dated 31.03.2010 issued under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act and the Guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education, the Writ Court held that accepting the recommendation and the Notification issued by the NCTE, the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011, which makes it very clear that TET shall be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE and that, it has been stated in the G.O. that teachers appointed prior to the G.O. will be given five years time to acquire the minimum qualification. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, by order dated 29.04.2022, which is impugned herein, at the instance of the writ petitioner.

5.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for both sides, in union, submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by a common judgment passed by the very same Bench earlier in The Director of School Education D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai vs. M. Velayutham (W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., batch decided on 02.06.2023). The key issues for determination and also the resultant portion of the said judgment, read as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 "1.The key issues that arise for determination in these batch of writ appeals and writ petitions are: (i) whether passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant/Graduate Teacher, from the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher (already in service). (ii) whether non-possession/non-acquisition of a pass in TET by a teacher appointed prior to 29.07.2011 would affect his/her continuance in service and drawal of increment, without seeking for further promotion to the post of BT Assistant/Graduate Teacher."

WHETHER TET IS A NECESSARY MANDATE FOR TEACHERS APPOINTED IN MINORITY SCHOOLS 71.1. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petitions leading to these writ appeals would indicate that the fact that the teachers, in respect of whom approval of appointment was sought for by the school, did not possess TET pass eligibility was not a ground for refusal for grant of appointment approval, nor was it an issue raised before the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petitions. Only in the writ appeals, the State Government has raised an additional ground that the teachers whose appointment approval was sought for, did not possess TET. Notwithstanding the same, it is hereby clarified that by virtue of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India, [(2014) 8 SCC 1], wherein, it was held that the RTI Act, 2009 insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution, meaning thereby that the 2009 Act will not apply to minority schools, the eligibility of TET pass as required for appointment of teachers in non-minority schools, will not apply to minority schools. In other words, the approval of appointment of teachers in minority schools, both aided and unaided, cannot be refused or rejected on the ground that they do not possess a pass in TET. Further, this specific issue is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, cited supra, holds the filed as on today. For these reasons, the order of the Learned Judge in the writ petitions is affirmed and the above four writ appeals are dismissed.

"74. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the upshot of the above discussion is as under: (a)Any teacher appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher or Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion. (b)Any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher after 29.07.2011 must necessarily possess TET. (c)Any appointment made to Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant, after 29.07.2011, whether by direct recruitment or promotion from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, or transfer, must necessarily possess TET. The principles laid down in this judgment will not have application to minority schools both aided and unaided as explained in paragraph no.71.1. (d)The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service issued in GO (Ms.) No.13 School Education (S.E3(1)) Department dated 30.01.2020 insofar as it prescribes “a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)” only for direct recruitment for the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion thereto in Annexure-I (referred to in Rule 6) is struck down, thereby meaning that TET is mandatory/essential eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of BT Assistant even by promotion from Secondary Grade Teachers. (e)The language employed in G.O. (Ms) No. 181 dated 15.11.2011 is to be read and understood to the effect that for continuance in service without promotional prospects, TET is not mandatory."

6.A reading of the above judgment would make it clear that any appointment made to Graduate Teacher / B.T. Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024

7.Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, wherein, the appellant / writ petitioner joined as B.T. Assistant on 15.06.2011 in the fourth respondent school, this court is of the opinion that she is entitled for continuance of service with annual increments and incentives, without a pass in TET. However, for future promotional aspects, the appellant must necessarily possess TET. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment dated 02.06.2023, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.

8.Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                      [R.M.D, J.]    [M.S.Q, J.]
                                                                              07.02.2024
                Neutral Citation : Yes/No
                gya

                To
                1.The Director of School Education
                DPI Campus, College Road
                Chennai 600 006

                2.The Chief Educational Officer
                Kancheepuram District
                Kancheepuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                7/9
                                                                    W.A.No.392 of 2024

                3.The District Educational Officer
                St. Thomas Mount, Chrompet
                Kancheepuram District

                4.The Secretary

Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059

5.The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006

6.The Secretary to Government Union of India Department of School Educational and Literacy Ministry of Human Resource development 217-C, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 001

7.The Member Secretary National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka New Delhi 110 075 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 R. MAHADEVAN, J.

AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.



--------------------

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           RESERVED ON : 11.01.2022
                                          PRONOUNCED ON : 10.03.2022
                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

                                            W.P.(MD)No.13498 of 2019
                                                     and
                                           W.M.P.(MD)No.10028 of 2019

                     V.Venugopal                                        ...Petitioner

                                                              /Vs./

                     1.The District Educational Officer,
                     Office of the District Educational Officer,
                     Sivagangai.

                     2.The Block Development Officer,
                     Thiruppuvanam,
                     Sivagangai District.

                     3.The Member Secretary,
                     National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE),
                     Hans Bhawan, Wing II,
                     1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
                     New Delhi – 110 002.

                     4.The Joint Secretary (SE-1),
                     Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),
                     Department of School Education and Literacy,
                     Shastri Bhawan,
                     New Delhi – 110 001.                               ...Respondents



                     1/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     (R3 & R4 are impleaded vide order of this Court dated 24.06.2019 in
                     WMP(MD)No.10565 of 2019)


                     PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

                     India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the

                     respondents to promote the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (English) by

                     taking his qualification of passing T.E.T. paper - II and by considering

                     his representation dated 02.01.2019.

                                              For Petitioner    : Mr.J.Anandkumar
                                              For R1 & R2       : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
                                                                  Special Government Pleader
                                              For R4            : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
                                                           Central Government Standing Counsel

                                                          ORDER

A watershed event in the history of India took place on 23.08.2010 with the passing of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘RTE Act’). The Act recognised the fundamental right of children within the age group of 6 to 14 years to free and compulsory education and by teachers who possessed and/or acquired the necessary qualifications to be able to instruct them in an appropriate and wholesome manner.

2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. Section 23 of the Act which came into force on and from 01.04.2010, reads as follows:

23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.—(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.

3.A Notification came to be issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (in short ‘NCTE’) which was constituted as the nodal body for implementation of the Act in F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE. (N&S) dated 23.08.2010 (in short ‘2010 Notification’).

4.The 2010 Notification stipulated minimum qualifications for eligibility for appointment as a teacher in classes 1 to 8 that’s are as follows:

3/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ‘1. Minimum Qualifications:-

                                  (i)    Classes I-V
                                  (a)    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45%

marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002 OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.) OR Senior Secondary for its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. (ii) Classes VI-VIII (a) B.A/B.Sc and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 – year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) OR B.A/B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 – year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.

OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed) OR 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed/B.Sc. Ed.

OR B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 – year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.’

5.Clauses 2 & 3 provide respectively that only a Diploma/Degree holder in Teachers’ education as recognised by the NCTE shall be considered for appointment making an exception in the subject of special education to say that a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) shall be taken as equivalent to a Diploma in Education (Special Education) or a B.Ed., (Special Education).

6.Clause 3 stipulates the training to be undergone by a candidate with B.Ed.,/B.sc., and the qualifications that she/he should possess for eligibility as follows:

3. Training to be undergone – A person – (a) with BA.B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January, 2019, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month programme in Elementary Education. 5/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.Clause 4 deals with teachers who had been appointed prior to the date of the Notification and is a saving Clause, in a way, reading as follows:

“4 Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification. - The following categories of teachers appointed for .classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above: (a) A teacher appointed on or after the-3" September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation.

Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B. Ed qualification, or a teacher possessing B. Ed (Special Education) or D. Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 - month special programme on elementary education.

(b) A teacher of class 1to V with B. Ed qualification who has completed a 6-month Special basic Teacher Course. (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE;

(c) A teacher appointed before the 3" September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.”

8.Clause 5 deals with a situation where a Government/Local Authority/Schools had initiated the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of the Notification and permits such appointments to be made in accordance with the NCTE Regulations that were in vogue at that relevant point in time.

6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.Thus, to my mind, the sum and substance of the 2010 Notification is that a Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as a mandate, stands imposed upon fresh appointments to be initiated and made after 23.08.2010, and appointments that had been either made prior to 23.08.2010 or in respect of which the process had been initiated prior to 23.08.2010 would not be disturbed/would not be visited with the changed qualifications that had been imposed under the 2010 Notification.

10.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No.181 School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 making the TET compulsory and the relevant portions of the G.O read as follows:

ABSTRACT School Education - The Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act(RTE)-2009 conducting of Teacher Eligibility Test(TET) - Orders - Issued.

                                                     School Education (C2) Department
                                  G.O.Ms No.181                                            Dated:
                                                                             15.11.2011
                                                                                            Read:

1. G.O.Ms.No.220, School Education(S2)Departnnent Dated: 10.11.2008. 2. Governnnent Letter No.15152/C2/2006-9, Dated: 9.10.2006. 3. Fronn the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, Letter No.76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad, Dated 11.2.2011 ORDER: The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted by the Parliament in 2009 to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6-14 years. The Act 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was published in the Gazette of India on 27th August 2009. Subsequently, the said Act was republished by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 24th February 2010. The said Act came into force with effect from 1st April 2010. 2. As per sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has been appointed as the Academic Authority by Government of India. The said Academic Authority has indicated to all the States that the teachers to be recruited in future for the elementary segment should have passed the "Teacher Eligibility Test"(TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education for the purpose. 3. The said section clearly specifies that teachers who at the commencement of this Act, do not possess minimum qualifications as prescribed by the Academic Authority authorized by the Central Government shall acquire - 2 - such minimum qualifications within a period of 5 years. Hence, the "Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)" would have to be conducted for recruiting teachers for the primary and upper primary classes. The teachers working in unaided private schools are required to pass Teacher Eligibility Test within 5 years. In the State of Tamil Nadu, Secondary Grade Teachers (those teaching classes I to V) are required to have minimum qualifications of D.T.Ed. and Graduate Assistants (BT Assistant) (those teaching classes VI to VIII) are required to have minimum qualification of B.Ed. They should also pass Teacher Eligibility Test forthwith. 


4. However, with the passing of the RTE Act, it is now mandatory for all the State Governments to recruit Secondary Grade and BT teachers only by conducting a Teacher Eligibility Test. 5. In the G.O. 1st read above, orders have been issued as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 20.8.2008 in SLP (c) No. 18227 - 18228/2008 that the State Government should followed the State wide seniority in employment registration while appointing Secondary Grade Teachers by calling for the list of eligible persons from all the District Employment Exchanges and by newspaper Public Advertisements throughout the State. The Supreme Court has further directed that the aforesaid arrangement will apply for any recruitment to be made pending disposal of these appeals. 6. In the Government letter 2"'* read above, the Government 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis changed the recruitment policy in 2006-07 for recruiting Graduate Assistants, from written examination to State wide registration seniority in Employment Exchange. 7. The Government carefully examined on the lines of the orders of Supreme Court of India in SLP(c) No.18227- 18228 dated 20.8.2008 and National Council for Teacher Education guidelines and issue the following orders in respect of change of policy for recruitment of Secondary Grade and B.T Teachers.

i. In respect of Secondary Grade Teachers, the statewide seniority in Employment Exchange Registration will continue to be followed till the disposal of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court of India.

ii. In respect of Graduate Assistants (B.T.Teachers recruited by TRB for the Classes VI to X) in all middle schools, High/Higher Secondary Schools, selection through written examinations ("Teacher Eligibility Test” ) in accordance with the guidelines framed by National Council for Teacher Education and certificate verification, will be followed.

iii The Teachers Recruitment Board is designate as the Nodal Agency for conducting of Teacher Eligibility Test and recruitment of Teachers.

8. Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test is enclosed in the Annexure to the Government Order.

                                                                       //By Order of Governor//
                                                                       (emphasis       by     underlining
                                                                       supplied)



 



Read more...

Sunday, June 11, 2023

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 419 of 2021 Chief Justice Bench Allahabad Highcourt जिसने शिक्षकों को एक से अधिक बार ट्रांसफर के आवेदन के लिए मोका दिया

  SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 419 of 2021 Chief Justice Bench Allahabad Highcourt जिसने शिक्षकों को एक से अधिक बार ट्रांसफर के आवेदन के लिए मोका दिया


COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD


Neutral Citation No. - 2021:AHC:63803-DB

?Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 419 of 2021

Appellant :- Ajay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,Jai Krishna Tiwari,Navin Kumar Sharma

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 6, Shri Jai Krishna Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Shri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 03.11.2020.� An application to seek leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant because his rights are affected by the judgement.�
The application to seek leave to appeal is allowed, as being not opposed by the petitioner/non-appellant so as the State Government and otherwise, we find that the appellant is affected by the outcome of the judgement under challenge.
The writ petition filed by the petitioners has been decided after detailed discussion of the issues.� The learned Single Judge, thereupon, gave following directions for its general application:-
"64. Since in this judgment I have already held Clauses 2(1)(A),(B) of the Government order dated 2nd December, 2019 to be contrary and in conflict with the statutory rules contained under the posting Rules, 2008 and clause 16 to be contradictory to the clause 15 of the Government order and also defeating the very objective sought to be achieved under the posting rules, 2008 in the light of the objectives set forth under the Right to Free Education for all Act, 2009 and Clause 15 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019 be read down in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment for female candidates as they may be specially circumstanced, I come to conclude with following observations/ directions to be necessarily kept in mind before finalizing the list of teachers seeking inter-district transfer:-
(I) No inter district transfer shall be done in the mid of the academic session.
(II) Transfer application should be entertained strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b) and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.
(III) Once a teacher has successfully exercised the option for inter district transfer, no second opportunity shall be afforded to any teacher of any category except in case of female teacher who has already availed benefit of inter district transfer on the ground of parents dependency, prior to her marriage. However, in case if the marriage has taken place then she will have only one opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer either on the ground of parents dependency or spouse residence/ in-laws residence.
(IV) In case of grave medical emergency for any incurable or serious disease that may as of necessity, require immediate medical help and sustained medical treatment, either personally or for the spouse, a second time opportunity to apply for inter district transfer should be afforded to such a teacher even if he/she had exercised such option for inter district transfer for any other reason in the past.
(V) Application of differently abled person should have very sympathetic consideration looking to physical disability but they should also have only one time opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer. In case of female teachers, such exception would apply, as referable to rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.
(VI) In case of female teacher's right to seek transfer, relaxation given under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule 8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be subject to rule 8(2) (b).
(VII) Save as observed and directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV and V), no second opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer be made available to any candidate of any category whatsoever.
(VIII) The exercise of inter-district transfer since is exception to the general rule of appointment and posting, every application for transfer has to be addressed to by the competent authority keeping in mind the objectives set forth under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2010 and must be acceded to citing a special circumstance specific to the case considered."
The only question raised before us is with regard to denial of second application for inter-district transfer.� The learned Single Judge has restricted the number of application to seek inter-district transfer.� It has been directed that after one application, the employee would not be entitled to move second application for his inter-district transfer; other than, in the exceptional circumstances carved out by the learned Single Judge.� The direction, aforesaid, is said to be in violation of Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules of 1981') and Rule 8 of the U.P. Teachers Posting Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called as, 'the Rules of 2008'). Both the Rules are quoted herein-below for a ready reference:-
"Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981: Procedure for Transfer- There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board shall be necessary.
Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008: Posting - (1) (a) Three options for schools shall be asked from the handicapped candidates in order of their merit and after receiving such option the handicapped candidates shall be posted on the basis of option given by them and the vacancies.
(b) Based on the order of their merit, female teachers would be required to submit under their signature option of three schools each from the general and backward block and accordingly, posting would be given in one of these schools.
(c) The posting of male teachers shall be made in accordance with the order of candidates in the roster prepared under Rule 7.
(2)(a) The newly appointed male teachers shall initially be posted compulsorily in backward areas for a period of at least five years.
(b) Newly appointed female teachers shall also be compulsorily posted in backward area for a period of at least two years.
(c) Mutual transfers within the district from general block and backward block and vice-versa would be permitted with the condition that the teacher on mutual transfer to a backward block shall have to serve in that block compulsorily for five years. Mutual transfers would be permitted only in case of those teachers who have more than remaining five year's service.
(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.
(e) If by virtue of posting of newly appointed or promoted teachers the primary and upper primary schools of backward blocks get saturated i.e. no post of teacher is vacant in these schools, then handicapped and female teachers on their choice can be adjusted against the vacant posts of general blocks from these saturated blocks.
(f) Mutual transfers of male/female teachers from one backward blocks to another can be considered.
(3) Teachers transferred from one district to another will be given posting as per the provision of these rules."
Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981, quoted above, imposes a bar on transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district, except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher.
The transfer from one district to another has not been permitted as a course, but can be made on the request or with the consent of the teacher.� Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 also provides that 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.� Both the rules do not preclude number of applications for seeking inter-district transfers.
In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to bar second application for inter-district transfer.� The transfer of teachers, otherwise, remains in the domain of the State Government and thereby, mere submission of the application does not create any right in favour of the employee to seek transfer.� It remains at the discretion of the Government.� If a teacher gives one application for inter-district transfer and is accepted, the Rule does not bar further transfer by making an application.� It is more so, when, on seeking inter-district transfer, one loses his seniority.� He/she is placed at the bottom of the seniority of the district he/she is transferred.�
The restraint imposed by the learned Single Judge on second application for inter-district transfer is de hors the Rules.�
The counsel for the petitioner has supported the appeal. He submits that there was no prayer in the writ petition to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer after first application has been accepted or rejected; rather, the Government Order, imposing prohibition to make second application for inter-district transfer, was challenged. It was for the reason that the condition imposed by the administrative order was de hors the Rules.� When the Rules do not prohibit second application, it could not have been imposed by an administrative order.�
The prayer is, accordingly, to modify the judgement of the learned Single Judge by accepting the appeal.
The counsel appearing for the State has, initially, opposed the appeal, but could not show any provision to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.� In a case where the first application for inter-district transfer is accepted and one is transferred to another district, the Rules do not cast a bar on another application later on to seek inter-district transfer.� It is specially when making an application does not create a right of transfer. The transfer, otherwise, affects the employee in order of seniority. The learned Standing Counsel is fair enough to accept that there is no bar under the Rules to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.�
In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory Rules.� To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government.� It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred. �
With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.�
If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
Amit Mishra
Read more...

Writ 3633 of 2021, जिसमे कोर्ट ने बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को आदेशित किया को सिर्फ एक बार ट्रांसफर के लिए आवेदन नियमों का उल्लंघन है, और शिक्षक ट्रांसफर की लिए दोबारा आवेदन के पात्र हो गए

Writ 3633 of 2021, जिसमे कोर्ट ने बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को आदेशित किया को सिर्फ एक बार ट्रांसफर के लिए आवेदन नियमों का उल्लंघन है, और शिक्षक ट्रांसफर की लिए दोबारा आवेदन के पात्र हो गए


 Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3633 of 2021

Petitioner :- Anuradha

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 06th February,
2021, whereby petitioner's relieving pursuant to the order of
voluntary transfer has been declined on the ground that second

transfer was impermissible in terms of the Government Order
dated 02.12.2019.

Whether or not more than one transfer would be permissible is
an issue which came up for consideration before a Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 419 of
2021, in which the Division Bench has been pleased to observe
as under:-

"In view of the above, we find that the Government Order,
imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is
not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory
Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and
causing interference in the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district
transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of
application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it
would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is
furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district
transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the
seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.

With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the
Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single
Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as
Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at
liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it
would not be restricted to only one application in his service
tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an
application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it
would remain at the discretion of the Government.

If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the
judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the
remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.”

Smt. Archana Singh for the respondent states that the authority be
permitted to revisit the matter in light of aforesaid judgment.

In view of the what has been observed above, the relieving
cannot be declined merely on the ground that the second
transfer is impermissible. Consequently, the order passed by the
District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur dated 06.02.2021
cannot be sustained and is quashed.

The authority concerned shall revisit the issue in light of the
observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated
05.07.2021 extracted above. Such consideration would be made
within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a
copy of this order.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 4.8.2021
Pkb/
Read more...

Friday, June 9, 2023

Second chance for transfer Given by Court for Basic Teacher UP / कुछ खास कोर्ट के आदेश जिनके आधार पर दूसरी बार शिक्षकों को ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मोका

 Second chance for transfer Given by Court for Basic Teacher UP / कुछ खास कोर्ट के आदेश जिनके आधार पर दूसरी बार शिक्षकों को ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मोका 


Writ 3633 of 2021 के आदेश के संदर्भ में नीचे दिए गए कोर्ट आदेश में कहा गया की बेसिक शिक्षक को दोबारा ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मोका मिलेगा 

Anuradha vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 25						                 Reserved
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10811 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Anuradha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Arun Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition is filed with the following prayer:-

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 24.01.2022 and 18.02.2022 passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj/respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.09.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur/Respondent No.4.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to relieve the petitioner from District Gorakhpur.

c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join in district Barabanki on the post of Head Mistress in Primary School run by Basic Education Board as per her transfer order dated 31.12.2020 and relieving order dated 31.08.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bhasiya Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, vide appointment letter dated 24.12.2005, and thereafter, she was promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School on 23.01.2010 and she joined in Upper Primary School, Daridiha, Block-Semriyaya, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the request of the petitioner, she was transferred from Santkabir Nagar to Gorakhpur, and thereafter, order was passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur/respondent No.4 on 04.10.2023 and petitioner was allowed to join in Upper Primary School on 05.10.2012. Later on, petitioner was directed to join as Head Mistress in Primary School, Ayodhyachak, Block Sardarnagar, District Gorakhpur and she joined on 16.01.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Messenger in U.P. Police Telecom Department in District Barabanki and he was fallen ill due to chronic liver failure and his treatment was going on in SGPGI, Lucknow. Thereafter, she requested for inter district transfer and opted District Lucknow or near by place, which was considered in accordance with provision of U.P. Basic Education (Teacher Posting Rules, 2008) and transferred to District Barabanki, but respondent No.4 denied to relieve her, then she filed Writ Petition No.3633 of 2021, which was allowed by quashing the order of respondent No.4, dated 06.02.2021 and concerned authority was directed to revisit the issue. In compliance of the order dated 04.08.2021, fresh representation was moved before the respondent No.4, who passed the relieving order on 31.08.2021 and petitioner relieved to join District Barabanki and she approached to respondent No.5 (District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki) and requested for her joining by way of written application, dated 06.09.2021. Thereafter, letter dated 09.09.2021 was written by the respondent No.5 to respondent No.2 and asked necessary instructions in relation to joining of the petitioner in District Barabanki. In the meantime, respondent No.4 (District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur) recalled the relieving order of the petitioner, dated 03.09.2021 and directed to join her services in her earlier school in District Gorakhpur. Again, petitioner approached before this Court by filing Contempt Application Civil No.5695 of 2021. In the meantime, order dated 24.01.2022 and 18.02.2022 have been passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj as well as District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur had passed the order dated 06.02.2021 on the ground that second request for inter district transfer was not permissible, but the order dated 06.02.2021 was set aside by this Court in Writ-A No.3633 of 2021 and District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur was directed to revisit the order, and thereafter, he passed the relieving order. Later on, her relieving order was recalled and impugned order has been passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj with the observation that illness of the husband of petitioner does not come in the category mentioned in the Government Order, dated 02.12.2019, therefore, her application was rejected. He further submitted that impugned order passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj does not releval that under what circumstances, she was transferred to Barabanki, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submitted that ailment of the husband of the petitioner does not come in the category, which is mentioned in the Government Order as liver cirrhosis does not cover in the definition of liver failure, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of petition as well as impugned order, as it is undisputed fact that second application of petitioner for inter district transfer is not barred and respondents/authorities are the custodian of the record and when the petitioner submitted her application for transfer from Gorakhpur to Lucknow or near by place, 39 quality points were given to her, and thereafter, she was transferred to District Barabanki and District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur denied her relieving, vide order dated 06.02.2021 on the ground that second request for inter district transfer is not admissible. The order dated 06.02.2021 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ-A No.3633 of 2021, which was allowed and order dated 06.02.2021 was set aside with the direction to revisit the order. Thereafter, petitioner was relieved by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur on 31.08.2021. The relevant part of the relieving order dated 31.08.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur reads as under:-

" निर्णय उपर्युुक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थियों एवं मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित याचिका सं०-3633/2021 पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.08.2021 में याची का प्रत्यावेदन स्वीकार किया जाता है तथा उक्त याचिका में अंकित स्पेशल अपील डिफेक्टिव नं०-419/2021 में डिवीजन बेंच द्वारा दिये गये आदेश को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए याची अनुराधा प्र०अ०, प्रा०वि० अयोध्याचक, सरदारनगर, गोरखपुर के कार्यमुक्ति पर पुर्नविचार करते हुए इस कार्यालय से निर्गत आदेश पत्रांक मान्यता/17204-06/2020-21 दिनांक 06 फरवरी 2021 को निरस्त करते हुए स्थानान्तरित जनपद बाराबंकी हेतु कार्यमुक्त किया जाता है। "

9. Thereafter, petitioner was relieved and given her joining in the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki on 06.09.2021, but in place of allowing her, Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh, the then District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki sought guidelines from District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, and thereafter, impugned order has been passed. As in the impugned order, it is not denied that petitioner was given 39 quality points on her application for transfer.

10. It is also evident from the record that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from liver cirrhosis, therefore, writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 24.01.2022 and 18.02.2022 passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj/respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.09.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur/Respondent No.4 are hereby set aside.

11. District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki is directed to allow the petitioner to resume the charge in pursuance of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, forthwith.

Order Date :- 16.02.2023 Amit/-

Read more...