/* remove this */

Friday, September 27, 2013

72825 Teacher Recruitment, UP-TET 2011 : अनशन के समर्थन में पहुंचे अनुग्रह


72825 Teacher Recruitment, UP-TET 2011 : अनशन के समर्थन में पहुंचे अनुग्रह
टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों का अनशन दसवें दिन भी जारी






इलाहाबाद : परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों के पद पर अविलंब भर्ती शुरू करने की मांग को लेकर 17 सितंबर से अनशन पर बैठे टीईटी पास अभ्यर्थियों का क्रमिक अनशन दसवें दिन भी जारी रहा। बृहस्पतिवार को शहर उत्तरी विधायक अनुग्रह नारायण सिंह ने पहुंचकर अनशनकारियों की मांगों का समर्थन किया। उन्होंने कहा कि प्रदेश सरकार की लापरवाही के कारण लाखों छात्रों का कैरियर दांव पर लगा है।
उन्होंने कहा कि बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में जो गड़बड़ी व्याप्त है उसे दूर करने का प्रयास किया जाएगा। बार काउंसिल के अध्यक्ष और बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री से इस संबंध में बातचीत की जाएगी। न्याय प्रक्रिया पर सभी को विश्वास रखना चाहिए। इस मौके पर विभिन्न जनपदों से आए शिवमणि राय, प्रकाशचंद्र यादव, अजय निरंजन, मो. सारिक, समीम अख्तर, अनूप कुमार, दीपेंद्र बहादुर सिंह, राकेश, रणविजय सिंह राणा, शरद द्विवेदी, लालचंद्र यादव, फौजदार यादव, धर्मेंद्र सिंह आदि छात्र रहे


News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (27.9.13)



Read more...

Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : कोर्ट ने छोड़ा राज्य सरकार पर फैसला


Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : कोर्ट ने छोड़ा राज्य सरकार पर फैसला





इलाहाबाद : जूनियर हाईस्कूल में गणित और विज्ञान के अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए आयु सीमा 40 वर्ष करने के मामले में हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद याचीगणों का आवेदन स्वीकार कर सकता है मगर उस पर अंतिम स्वीकृति राज्य सरकार के निर्णय पर निर्भर करेगी। कोर्ट ने परिषद और राज्य सरकार से इस मामले में चार सप्ताह में जवाब दाखिल करने को कहा है
शालिनी गंगवार और दिव्यप्रकाश मिश्र सहित अन्य तमाम अभ्यर्थियों की याचिकाओं पर सुनवाई करते हुए यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति पीकेएस बघेल ने दिया। याचिका पर बहस करते हुए अधिवक्ता वेदमणि तिवारी ने कहा कि विज्ञान और गणित विषय के सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती के मामले में आयु सीमा में छूट न मिल पाने के कारण हजारों अभ्यर्थी आवेदन जमा करने से वंचित रह गए हैं


Sabhaar : Amar Ujala ( 27.9.13)

Read more...

News : दागियों से जुड़े अध्यादेश को राहुल ने कहा 'बकवास'; पीएम करेंगे चर्चा


News : दागियों से जुड़े अध्यादेश को राहुल ने कहा 'बकवास'; पीएम करेंगे चर्चा

दागी नेताओं से जुड़े सरकार के अध्यादेश को उन्हीं की पार्टी कांग्रेस के उपाध्यक्ष राहुल गांधी ने बकवास करार देते हुए कहा है कि इसे फाड़कर फेंक देना चाहिए। इधर, प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह ने कहा है कि इस मसले पर कैबिनेट में चर्चा की जाएगी।

नई दिल्ली के प्रेस क्लब में पत्रकारों से बातचीत करने पहुंचे राहुल गांधी ने अभूतपूर्व बयान देते हुए अपनी ही सरकार के फैसले पर सवाल उठा दिया और कहा कि भ्रष्टाचार से कोई समझौता नहीं किया जा सकता और यह अध्यादेश लाना सरकार की गलती है। इस बीच सूत्रों से मिल रही जानकारी के मुताबिक, सरकार और कांग्रेस के बीच इस मतभेद के सामने आने के बाद अब सरकार इस अध्यादेश को वापस ले सकती है।

बीजेपी के नेता अरुण जेटली ने राहुल के बयान पर कहा कि ये बकवास कांग्रेस को पहले समझ में नहीं आई। अध्यादेश लाने वालों के खिलाफ कांग्रेस कार्रवाई करेगी? अब कांग्रेस क्राइसेस मैनेजमेंट में जुटी है।

वहीं मुख्तार अब्बास नकवी ने कहा कि सोनिया और राहुल से पूछे बिना कुछ नहीं होता तो वह उसी सरकार के अध्यादेश को फाड़कर कौन-सा नाटकीय मंचन कर रहे हैं। यह सरकार नहीं एक नौटंकी कंपनी बन गई है।

उधऱ, कांग्रेसी नेता अजय माकन ने कहा है कि अगर राहुल गांधी जी अध्यादेश का विरोध करते हैं तो अब कांग्रेस भी इसका विरोध करती है। वहीं राजीव शुक्ला ने कहा कि जो राहुल गांधी कह रहे हैं पार्टी वही मानेगी


उल्लेखनीय है कि कैबिनेट से राष्ट्रपति के पास भेजे गए इस अध्यादेश पर राष्ट्रपति प्रणब मुखर्जी ने भी फिलहाल दस्तखत न करने का मन बनाया है। सूत्र बता रहे हैं कि राष्ट्रपति ने सरकार से अध्यादेश की ज़रूरत के बारे में प्रश्न किए हैं। इसके अलावा राष्ट्रपति ने इस मुद्दे पर सर्वदलीय बैठक के बारे में भी जानकारी तलब की है। गुरुवार शाम को राष्ट्रपति ने केंद्रीय कानूनमंत्री कपिल सिब्बल, कमनाथ और गृहमंत्री सुशील कुमार शिंदे को बिल की जरूरत पर राय जानने के लिए बुलाया था। देर शाम तीनों नेताओं ने राष्ट्रपति से मुलाकात की थी।

इस मुलाकात के बाद, सूत्रों के अनुसार, राष्ट्रपति ने फिलहाल अध्यादेश पर अपनी मुहर न लगाने का फैसला किया है। सूत्र यह भी बता रहे हैं कि इस बिल पर दस्तखत के लिए राष्ट्रपति प्रणब मुखर्जी, प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह के आने का इंतजार करेंगे। कहा जा रहा है कि इस अध्यादेश से सरकार सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला पलटने की कोशिश कर रही है। गौरतलब है कि गुरुवार की शाम को भारतीय जनता पार्टी के तमाम नेता राष्ट्रपति से मिले थे और मांग की थी कि वह इस अध्यादेश पर हस्ताक्षर न करें


Sabhaar : khabar.ndtv.com (27.9.13)
**************************************************
Rahul Gandhi ji ne Dageeyon ko bacahne ke Bill ko Bakwaas Karar Diya,
Bahut Hee Achhee Baat Kahee Hai.
Mere Khyaal se Adhyadesh me Sangeen Apradhon - Rape, Ghotala, Anti Nationalism jaise apradhon/ apradheeyon ke chunav ladne par rok laga denee chahaiye.

Lekin Rajneeti se prerit jaise kabhee vipaksh virodh karta hai to Sarkari hastakshep jaise jurm aadi ko dhyaan mein rakhte hue aur kam saja 1 saal ya is se neeche valon ko Rajneeti mein nahin roka jaaana chahaiye.
दागियों से जुड़े अध्यादेश को राहुल ने कहा 'बकवास'; पीएम करेंगे चर्चा

Aap logon ki kya ray hai

Read more...

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

UPTET : दस हजार शिक्षकों की भर्ती अक्टूबर से

UPTET : दस हजार शिक्षकों की भर्ती अक्टूबर से









लखनऊ : बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित प्राथमिक स्कूलों में 10,000 शिक्षकों की भर्ती होने जा रही है। भर्ती के लिए विज्ञापन प्रकाशन से लेकर नियुक्ति तक की प्रक्रिया 15 अक्टूबर से 15 दिसंबर के बीच पूरी की जाएगी। भर्ती के लिए विभिन्न जिलों में पद आवंटित कर दिये गए हैं।

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने इस बारे में बुधवार को शासनादेश जारी कर दिया है। इन पदों पर भर्ती के लिए राज्य या केंद्र सरकार की ओर से आयोजित अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी/ सीटीईटी) उत्तीर्ण करन के साथ दो वर्षीय बीटीसी या विशिष्ट बीटीसी या दो वर्षीय बीटीसी उर्दू प्रवीणताधारी प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करने वाले अभ्यर्थी आवेदन कर सकेंगे। भर्ती के लिए अभ्यर्थियों को ऑनलाइन आवेदन करना होगा। शिक्षकों की भर्ती के कार्यक्रम के बारे में शासन ने बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशक से प्रस्ताव मांगा है

----------

कहां कितनी होगी भर्ती

शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए मेरठ, बागपत, गाजियाबाद, हापुड़, गौतम बुद्ध नगर, लखनऊ, झांसी व कानपुर नगर में प्रत्येक में 10, आगरा, फिरोजाबाद, एटा, हाथरस, मथुरा, बरेली, प्रतापगढ़, कौशाम्बी, वाराणसी, गाजीपुर, उन्नाव, बस्ती, जालौन, चित्रकूटधाम, महोबा, हमीरपुर, फैजाबाद, सुल्तानपुर, अंबेडकरनगर, मुरादाबाद, बिजनौर, कानपुर देहात, आजमगढ़ व मऊ में प्रत्येक में 50, कन्नौज में 60, बुलंदशहर, अलीगढ़, इलाहाबाद, फतेहपुर, जौनपुर, रायबरेली, गोरखपुर, संत कबीर नगर, ललितपुर, बांदा, बाराबंकी, गोंडा, संभल, रामपुर, इटावा, औरैया, फर्रुखाबाद, बलिया, सहारनपुर, मुजफ्फरनगर व शामली में प्रत्येक में 100, अमरोहा में 110, मैनपुरी, कासगंज, मीरजापुर, सोनभद्र, देवरिया व अमेठी में प्रत्येक में 150, बदायूं, पीलीभीत व संत रविदास नगर में प्रत्येक में 200, शाहजहांपुर, चंदौली, कुशीनगर, महाराजगंज, सिद्धार्थनगर, बलरामपुर, बहराइच, व श्रावस्ती में प्रत्येक में 400, हरदोई व लखीमपुर खीरी में प्रत्येक में 500 और सीतापुर में 750 पद आवंटित किये गए हैं



News Sabhaar : जागरण ब्यूरो (25.9.13)



Read more...

What Can Be Happen in 7th Pay Commission / Expected Pay

What Can Be Happen in 7th Pay Commission / Expected Pay 




Finance Minister P. Chidambaram announced 7th pay commission for Central Government employees today which will be effective from 1st January 2016 and almost 50 lakhs employees will cherish the hike in salary, allowances and 30 lakhs pensioners will be benefited. Here are some key features and projected salary status in 7th pay commission.

The pay commission is revised at every 10 years, seeing the status of Government funds the 7th pay commission was in dilemma but contrary to it was announced and even approved by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh much before than expectation. The reason behind this is expected to be the upcoming assembly election in 5 states ie Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram. The Congress Government want to capitalize on this announcement.


Salary structure of Central Government employee after 7th pay commission

Though the names of names of the chairperson and members of the 7th Pay Commission has not been finalized yet and will be shortly done, but seeing the trend of salary and allowances hike in every pay commission a basic projection has been made. The pay structure after every pay commission depends upon economic condition of the Country, funds with Government and on comparison with public and private sectors to make it parallel as much as possible. Though making a prediction at this moment is pre mature still seeing the fact that average 3 times increase in the pay was recommended by each pay commission and it was accepted by government and implemented with an exception of rise of about 2.26 times after 6th CPC for the scales from S4 to S2,3 and nearly 3 times or more for the higher scales a data has been made.

Thus based on above facts the expected pay structure after 7th pay commission that is after 1st January 2016 will be as follows.

7th pay commission salary structure for PB 1


For pay scale in PB 1 of 5200-20200 with GP 1800 and entry pay 7000 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 15600-60600 with GP 5400 and entry pay 21000 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 1 of 5200-20200 with GP 1900 and entry pay 7730 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 15600-60600 with GP 5700 and entry pay 23190 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 1 of 5200-20200 with GP 2000 and entry pay 8460 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 15600-60600 with GP 6000 and entry pay 25380 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 1 of 5200-20200 with GP 2400 and entry pay 9910 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 15600-60600 with GP 7200 and entry pay 29730 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 1 of 5200-20200 with GP 2800 and entry pay 11360 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 15600-60600 with GP 8400 and entry pay 34080 Rs.

PB 2 salary in seventh pay commission


For pay scale in PB 2 of 9300-34800 with GP 4200 and entry pay 13500 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 29900-104400 with GP 12600 and entry pay 40500 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 2 of 9300-34800 with GP 4600 and entry pay 17140 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 29900-104400 with GP 13800 and entry pay 51420 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 2 of 9300-34800 with GP 4800 and entry pay 18150 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 29900-104400 with GP 14400 and entry pay 54450 Rs.

Salary for PB 3 in 7th pay commission


For pay scale in PB 3 of 15600-39100 with GP 5400 and entry pay 21000 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 46800-104400 with GP 16200 and entry pay 63000 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 3 of 15600-39100 with GP 6600 and entry pay 25530 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 46800-104400 with GP 19800 and entry pay 76590 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 3 of 15600-39100 with GP 7600 and entry pay 29500 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 46800-104400 with GP 22800 and entry pay 88500 Rs.

PB 4 pay structure in 7th pay commission


For pay scale in PB 4 of 37400-67000 with GP 8700 and entry pay 46100 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 112200-201000 with GP 26100 and entry pay 138300 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 4 of 37400-67000 with GP 8900 and entry pay 49100 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 112200-201000 with GP 26700 and entry pay 147300 Rs.
For pay scale in PB 4 of 37400-67000 with GP 10000 and entry pay 53000 the scale in 7th pay commission will be 112200-201000 with GP 30000 and entry pay 159000 Rs.

Salary for HAG and cabinet rank in 7th pay commission


For HAG with pay scale of 67000-79000 with an increament of 3% annually will be 201000 with increament 3% annually.
For HAG with pay scale of 75000-80000 with an increament of 3% annually will be 226500 with increament 3% annually.
For apex Scale 80000 (Fixed)of 6th pay commission it will be 240000 and for Cab. Sec. of 90000 (Fixed) it will be 270000 in 7th pay commission.

Allowances in 7th pay commission

There will be definite changes in all the allowances given to Central Government employees in seventh pay commission. The travelling allowances (TA), Transport allowances, Convience allowance given to Railway doctors, annual allowances, night allowances will increase to double. Dearness allowance will start from 0% from 1st January 2016 and will increase every 6 month. Annual increament is expected to be same. House rent allowance may not see any changes.



SIXTH CPC PAY STRUCTURE
PROJECTED PAY STRUCTURE FOR NEXT (VII) PAY COMMISSION
Name of Pay Band/ ScaleCorresponding Pay BandsCorresponding Grade PayEntry Grade +band pay
Projected entry level pay using uniform multiplying factor` 3’
Band PayGrade PayEntry Pay
PB-15200-202001800700015600-60600540021000
PB-15200-202001900773015600-60600570023190
PB-15200-202002000846015600-60600600025380
PB-15200-202002400991015600-60600720029730
PB-15200-2020028001136015600-60600840034080
PB-29300-3480042001350029900-1044001260040500
PB-29300-3480046001714029900-1044001380051420
PB-29300-3480048001815029900-1044001440054450
PB-315600-3910054002100029900-1044001620063000
PB-315600-3910066002553046800-1173001980076590
PB-315600-3910076002950046800-1173002280088500
PB-437400-67000870046100112200-2010026100138300
PB-437400-67000890049100112200-2010026700147300
PB-437400-670001000053000112200-2010030000159000
HAG67000- (ann increment @ 3%) -79000Nil201000
HAG+ Scale75500- (ann increment @ 3%) -80000Nil226500
Apex Scale80000 (Fixed)Nil240000
Cab. Sec.90000 (Fixed)Nil270000

Source: www.gservants.com
[http://www.gservants.com/2013/02/11/7th-pay-commission-projected-pay-scale/


http://www.irtsa.net/pdfdocs/Projected_Pay_Scales_after_7th_Pay_Commission.pdf
http://www.updatesindia.in/2013/09/7th-pay-commission-key-features-salary-allowances-structure.html



Read more...

Some Recent Hearings / Decisions Made By Allahabad High Court Regarding Teachers Recruitment / Teacher Eligibility Test


Some Recent Hearings / Decisions Made By Allahabad High Court Regarding Teachers Recruitment / Teacher Eligibility Test








HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 1 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48974 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Samman Devi & Anr. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 7 Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhup Vishwas,Arun Kumar Tripathi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 
Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 to 8. 
Each one of the respondent is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 
List after eight weeks alongwith record of W.P. No. 34407 of 2013. 
It is being contended by the petitioners that there is judgment of this Court dated 21.5.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6999 (S/S) 2008 and therein this Court has interpreted Rule 22 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 holding seniority is to be determined from the date of substantive appointment. Petitioners submit that in such a situation once incumbent had been accorded promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary Schools to Higher post, then his/her seniority is not� to be calculated from the date of initially appointment but on the basis of substantive appointment. Petitioners submit that� seniority has been prepared on totally wrong premises and promotional exercise� now is to be undertaken. 
In view of this, District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur shall ensure at the point of time when he proceeds to accord promotion that seniority list should� adhered to strictly in consonance with Rule 22 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. 
Order Date :- 11.9.2013 
T.S. 



*******************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. 1 

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49437 of 2013 
Chandrika Yadav 
Versus 
State of U.P. and others. 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Petitioner has approached this court requesting therein that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher in any Basic school pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.6.2013. 
On the matter being taken up today, precise query has been raised as to what has been the foundation and basis for non issuing of appointment letter, and then it has been informed by Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, Advocate representing District Basic Education Officer that as on date petitioner cannot be offered appointment for the simple reason that he has crossed 50 years of age and as such he is ineligible to be offered appointment in consonance with IIIrd proviso of Rule-6 of U.P. Basic Eduction (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981. 
This Court has the occasion to peruse the aforementioned Rules, 1981 and Rule 6 deals with the age of a candidate who intends to be recruited for the post of Assistant Teacher and therein IIIrd proviso clearly proceeds to mention that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained un-appointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age, if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. Accepted position is that petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age and as such as on date no directive can be issued for consideration of his claim. Only relaxation which has been so accorded in this direction is same is in reference to candidates, who have completed Special B.T.C. Course, 1999 and B.Ed/B.P.Ed/C.P.Ed. and further relaxation has been accorded in reference of having degree in Urdu subject or complete B.T.C., upper age limit determined by the State Government. Here in the present case factual situation is that petitioner has crossed the age of 50 years. 
Prayer which has been made by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason on account of the fact that as on date petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age as such he is prohibited from being appointed under Rule-6 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Accepted position is that petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age and as such as on date no directive can be issued for consideration of his claim. Petitioner as on date is disqualified to be appointed as Assistant teacher under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. 
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. 
Dt. 12.09.2013 
T.S. 


**************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 6 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5124 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Meer Mujahid Ali & Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Basic Edu. & Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Misra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.R. Misra 

Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J. 
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and Sri D.R. Misra for opposite party no. 3. 
The petitioner is seeking a direction to the opposite party no. 1 to modify and add the necessary provision as given in Rule 14(4) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 in the advertisement dated 17.8.2013, as contained in Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. For convenience Rule 14 along with sub Rule 4 have been quoted by the petitioner in para no. 3 of the writ petition. The same is being reproduced in this order also : 
14. Determination of vacancies and preparation of list-(1) In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under clause (a) of rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, dependents of freedom fighters and other categories under Rule 9 and notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchange and in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State as well as in the concerned district inviting applications from candidates possessing prescribed training qualification from the district concerned. 
(2) The appointing authority shall scrutinize the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement and the names of candidates received from the Employment Exchange and prepare a list of such persons as appear to possess the prescribed academic qualifications and be eligible for appointment.) 
(3) The Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) may, on the application of a candidate, and for reasons to be recorded, direct that his name be included at the bottom of the list prepared under sub-rule-(2). 
-2- 
(4) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule� (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidates who have passed the required training course earlier in point of time shall be placed higher than those who have passed the said training course later and the candidates, who have passed the training course in a particular year shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the Appendix. 
(5) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless his or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule (2). 
(6) The list prepared under sub-rule (2) and arranged in accordance with sub-rule (4) shall be forwarded by the appointing authority to the selection committee.) 
Petitioner says that he has obtained certificate of 'Moillim-e-Urdu' in the year 1995 and he has also qualified T.E.T. in the year 2011. Petitioner simply says that in the merit list he should be given benefit of seniority to the persons who have obtained this degree subsequently. He says that this is the intention of the legislature while enacting Rule 14(4) as mentioned above. 
The advertisement dated 17.8.2013 has been annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. 
The petitioner does not have any conflict with the advertisement nor he is challenging any provision of the advertisement� / order dated 17.8.2013. This being so the argument of the petitioner appears to be sanguine and correct. 
The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to deny the argument of the petitioner on any legal ground. However, he prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. One week is provided to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. 
Meanwhile the opposite parties are directed to arrange the names of the petitioner year-wise in accordance with the spirit of sub rule (4) of Rule 14 as mentioned above. The merit list shall be prepared accordingly. 
Order Date :- 9.9.2013/Om


***********************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 1 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44405 of 2013 
Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar And 2 Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Ram 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B.Pradhan 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Sri R V Pradhan, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 
Six weeks time is accorded to each one of the respondent to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks. 
List thereafter, alongwith Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 34407 of 2013 (Ved Prakash Gautam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). 
This court has already stayed the operation of the circular dated 14.06.2013, as such no separate� order is required to be passed repeating same order. 
However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from finalizing the seniority list strictly as per Rule 22 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981. 
Order Date :- 29.8.2013 
Dhruv 

***********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 34 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13922 of 1996 
Petitioner :- Jawahar Yadav & Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- N.I. Jafri,M.R. Khan 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 
1. Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of petitioner. However, I have perused the record. 
2. The petitioner has sought following relief: 
"to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.1.96 (Annexure-8 to the petition) passed by respondent no. 2." 
3. The petitioners appear to have been sent for training in 1996 having been appointed sometimes in 1984-85, i.e., after promulgation of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. It is also evident from record that petitioners did not possess training qualification and, hence as per Rules 4 and 5 could not have been appointed lacking requisite qualification. That being so, their appointment itself being illegal, they would not have been sent for training. 
4. This issue has already been considered in detail vide judgment of date passed in Writ Petition No. 13918 of 1996, Ram Awatar Mishra and another Vs. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and another and for the reasons stated therein and following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is also stands dismissed. 
Order Date :- 4.9.2013 
AK 

************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 31 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64888 of 2008 

Petitioner :- Suresh Singh 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Bhanot,G.S. Chauhan 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,J.N. Maurya,Sushil Kumar Singh 

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. 
The petitioner is a Ex-Serviceman, he has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.11.2008 whereby his representation for relaxation in age has been rejected. 
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 
The petitioner did his BTC training course in the year 1974 and after training he was enrolled in the Indian Army as RECT on 3rd May, 1976. After reaching his age of superannuation petitioner retired on 1.6.2005. After superannuation he made an application for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by the Board on 18th August, 2005. However, his application has been rejected on the ground that petitioner age is beyond the age limit mentioned in the statute. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 15489 of 2007 (Suresh Singh v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4.2.2008 with a direction to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequent thereupon the Basic Shiksha Adhikari after affording opportunity to the petitioner rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is above 50 years and there is no provision for grant of relaxation of age beyond 50 years. The order dated 9.2.2007 has been passed jointly under the signature of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is an Ex-Servicemen and all BTC holder upto the year 1997 have been given appointment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the recruitment of the Assistant Teacher are governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and after receiving instruction from the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Along with the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has annexed a document to establish that similarly situated persons whose age was beyond the upper age limit have been granted appointment. The said communication dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Principal DIET, Maharajganj to one Subedar is placed on record as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, the said communication has been obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of Right To Information Act. As the said document was enclosed first time along with the rejoinder affidavit this Court directed the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to file Supplementary Affidavit replying the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit. In compliance thereafter Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed today. In the said Supplementary Counter Affidavit the communication which has been brought on the record to establish that the similarly situated persons have been given appointment has not been replied/denied. 
I have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as learned Standing Counsel. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Bhanot submits that the petitioner was entitled for the age relaxation and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without application of mind has rejected the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner completed his training in the year 1974 and as such he is entitled for the upper age limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document which has been placed by the petitioner on record regarding similarly situated persons who are also Ex-Servicemen and their age is above 50 years is not denied in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. 
Learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari submits that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari before passing the said order has sought clarification from the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad who clearly stated that there is no power to provide age relaxation beyond 50 years to the Ex-Servicemen. In view of the said clarification/guidance issued by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 
I have considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic School are governed by the statutory rules which has been framed in exercise of power under subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P.Act B No.34 of 1972) and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short Rules, 1981). Rule 6 of the Rules, 1981deals with requisite age of a candidate. The said Rule reads as under:- 
"6 Age.- A candidate for recruitment to any post referred to in Clause (a) or proviso to clause (b) of Rule 5, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than Thirty -five years on the first day of July, following the year in which the vacancy is notified: 
Provided that the upper age limit shall, in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and dependents of freedom fighters be greater by five years or as provided by the State Government from time to time : 
Provided further that the upper age limit shall, in the case of a candidate, who is ex-serviceman, be greater by three years or as provided by the State Government form time to time: 
Provided also that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment: 
Provided also that no upper age limit shall apply in case of B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed or D.P.Ed. trained candidates who have completed special B.T.C. Training Course in the year 1999: 
Provided also that in case of candidates having proficiency in Urdu and having completed two years B.T.C.Urdu special B.T.C. training course or completed special BTC training course the upper age limit shall be such as may be determined from time to time by the State Government" 
For the ex-servicemen in addition to the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rule, 1981 Rule 10 also empowers the authority concerned for grant of relaxation in certain other categories. Rule 10 of the Rules,1981 reads as under:- 
"Relaxation for ex-servicemen and certain other categories.- Relaxation, if any, from the maximum age-limit, educational qualifications or/and any procedural requirements of recruitment in favour of the ex-servicemen, disabled military personnel, dependents of military personnel dying in action, dependants of Board's servants dying in harness and sportsmen shall be in accordance with the general rules or order of the Government in this behalf in force at the time of recruitment." 
A close look at the gamut of the said Rules it comes out that in the case of ex-servicemen there are provisions for the relaxation under Rule 6 of the Rules,1981 as well as specific Rule has been made Rule 10 of the Rules,1981. From the perusal of the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari it is demonstrably established that the statutory Rules have not been taken into consideration. This Court had directed the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It appears that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without application of his mind has simply sought a clarification from his superior officer and merely on the communication received from the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad he has passed the impugned order. Once this Court has issued a direction for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari it was obligatory on him to comply the direction instead of complying in true spirit the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has done an empty formality. On this ground his order is vitiated. 
Pertinently, petitioner has relied on another Rule the U.P. (Bhootpurva Sainiko Ke Tritya Shreni aur Chaturth Shreni Ki ab varg 'Ga' aur varg 'Gha' Sevaon Me Aur Paddo Per Rikityo Ka Arakshan) Niyamavali-1977 (in short 1977 Rules). Rule 5 of the 1772 Rules provides that Ex-Army person shall be allowed to reduce the tenure of his service from his actual age. Rule 5 as quoted in paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition reads as as under :- 

"5. Relaxation in the Age and Educational Qualification: (1) Age: an Ex-Army person shall be allowed to reduce the tenure of his service in the Army from his actual age and thereafter, the said calculated age, for the post the person is desirous of, if he is not exceeding 3 years for the prescribed age limit, it shall be deemed that the person is fulfilling the requirements of upper age limit. According to petitioner, in terms of said rule he is entitled for relaxation that is evident from Chart given below:- 
S.No. 
Present age of the petitioner at the time of request for the post in question 
Service period of the petitioner in the Indian Army 
Calculated age as per the Rule 1977 (upper age for the post in question 35 years) 
52 years approx 
29 years approx 
52-29= 23 years 

Petitioner has also brought on record an information which was furnished to him under the provisions of the RTI Act. The Basic Shiksha Adhkari in his communication dated 31.8.2007 has informed that in case of Ex-servicemen personnel the actual period served by him in the Army shall be excluded. A copy of the said document is Annexure -14 to the writ petition. 
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in my view the Director of Education may be issued a direction to consider the cause of the petitioner having regard to the statutory provisions and the factual disputes whether the similarly situate persons have been extended the proviso of Rule 6 and Rule 10 of the Rules, 1981. This fact was categorically mentioned by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit and the document which he has received under the Right to Information Act was placed on the record. Inspite of the direction of this Court to file a specific averment a Supplementary Counter Affidavit which has been filed doe not meet the factual aspects raised in the rejoinder affidavit. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not like to enter into determination of this factual aspects. 
After careful consideration of the aforesaid submissions and the facts a direction is issued upon the Director of Education, Basic to consider the cause of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observation as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of communication of this order. the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation along with the supporting documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 
For the aforestated reasons the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is liable to be quashed. 
Accordingly it is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 
Parties will bear their own cost. 
Order dated :1.2.2013 
ssm 


**********************
Some candidates suggested that below writ is of professional candidate to appear in Upper Primary Teachers Selection -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44400 of 2013

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gautam And 28 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
On the matter being taken up today, statement has been made at the Bar that the request, as has been raised by the petitioners before this Court, has been accorded by the State Government and, in view of this, as of date present writ petition has been rendered itself as infructuous.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 10.9.2013
Shekhar

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2782278
*****************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44400 of 2013

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gautam And 28 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Put up this case on Wednesday i.e. 4.9.2013.
By that time learned Standing Counsel shall obtain requisite instructions.
Order Date :- 29.8.2013
T.S.
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2758449


Read more...