सरकारी नौकरी शिक्षक भर्ती/नियुक्ति परिणाम / टीईटी Sarkari Naukri Recruitment/Appointment Result. Latest/Updated News - UPTET, CTET, BETET, RTET, APTET, TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) Merit/Counselling for Primary Teacher(PRT) of various state government including UP, Bihar
पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर पोस्टिंग की 2013 की एक याचिका , सचिव को रिप्रेसेंटेशन पर निर्णय के लिए दिया गया था निर्देश
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4356 of 2013 Petitioner :- Smt. Richa Awasthi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Kumar,Rajeev Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 to 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and transfer her at the place of posting of her husband at district Hardoi from district Sitapur on the post of Asst. Teacher, Junior High School, as per policy of the U.P. Government. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as her husband namely, Raghvendra Pandey, both are teachers. Presently, petitioner is posted as Head Teacher at Primary School, Samsapur, block Mishrikh, district Sitapur whereas her husband is posted as Head Teacher, Primary School, Bheetha Mahasingh, block Ahirori, district Hardoi. As per transfer policy, as far as possible, husband and wife are required to be posted at same place/ district. Further submission is that the petitioner moved an application for her transfer to the authorities concerned in the prescribed format on 26.3.2009 which was duly forwarded by the authority concerned. Again, in the year 2011, petitioner submitted application form 'on line' for her transfer from Sitapur to Hardoi so that she could live with her husband. Lastly, in the year 2013, petitioner again submitted her application form in the prescribed format for her transfer from Sitapur to Hardoi on 29.5.2013 (Annexure No. 5) but petitioner's case for transfer was not considered. The petitioner, being aggrieved with in-action of opposite parties, is constrained to approach this Court.� Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at some length, submitted that it would be in the interest of justice that necessary directions be issued to the Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad (Opposite Party No. 2) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure No. 8) within a stipulated period fixed by this Court. Shri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite parties has no objection to this prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad (Opposite Party No. 2) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure No. 8) in accordance with law, by passing speaking & reasoned order within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision so taken, be also communicated to the petitioner. Order Date :- 30.7.2013 ashok UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
UP Teacher Transfer - सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग पहले भी शिक्षिका पत्नियों को शिक्षक पति के जिले में अंतर जनपदीय स्थानांतरण कर चुके हैं , देखें देखें इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट की याचिका में -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 26 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1273 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mumtaz Tarannum Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher in Primary School (now promoted as Headmistress), by instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed the validity of the order dated 22nd January, 2014 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich whereby her representation staking her claim to be posted in Urban Local Area of District- Behraich has been rejected. In supported of the claim of the petitioner to be posted in an Urban Local Area, it has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the basic premise on the basis of which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is erroneous, inasmuch as, after the bifurcation of the erstwhile District-Basti and creation of District Siddharth Nagar, the Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar falls in an Urban Area whereas it has wrongly been recorded by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the impugned order that it still is situated in a Rural Area. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2002 as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar (the then District- Basti). The petitioner thereafter got married to one Shri Naim Ahmad Ansari, who is also working as Assistant Teacher in District Behraich. After the marriage, the petitioner has been making representations for her transfer to District- Behraich so that she can fulfill her marital and family obligations. However, the request made by the petitioner for her transfer from District Siddharth Nagar to Behraich was only acceded to by the Secretary of the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad who by means of order dated 14th August, 2012 transferred her from District Siddharth Nagar to District-Behraich. On the basis of the aforesaid order of transfer dated 14th August, 2012, passed by the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, the petitioner was relieved under the order passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar dated 10th September 2012. Accordingly, she was relieved and she submitted her joining in the office of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich on 21st September 2012. After she joined in Behraich, the petitioner was posted on 19th December, 2012 at Primary School, Tepraha Chak, Tajwapur. This institution at Tepraha Chak Tajwapur falls in the Rural Local Area. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per transfer policy any teacher working in an Urban Local Area on inter district transfer or even otherwise has to be posted only in Urban Local Area and not in Rural Local Area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various documents including the documents of Education Department itself to establish that Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar is situated in Urban Local Area and hence her posting at Primary School, Tepraha Chak, Tajwapur District-Behraich which lies in a Rural Area is against the policy of the respondents themselves. On the other hand, Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel representing the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad as well as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has vigorously attempted to defend the decision of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich and has stated that the Primary School situated at Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar, as per record maintained in the Basic Education Department, falls in the Rural Local Area. Hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 22nd January, 2014 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for her posting in an Urban Local Area. It has been contended by learned counsel representing the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the petitioner was transferred by the order of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad on 14th August, 2012 which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit filed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the said order of transfer depicts the petitioner's posting at Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar in Rural Area. He has also relied upon the information furnished by the petitioner in her application seeking her transfer which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit wherein the petitioner has herself sought her transfer in Rural Area Behraich and has also mentioned her posting at Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugardh District- Siddharth Nagar to be in a Rural Local Area. On the basis of the aforesaid two documents, Shri Ghaus Beg has stated that even as per the own assessment of the petitioner, she has been initially posted at District Siddharth Nagar in Rural Local Area, as such her claim for her posting in an Urban Local Area is not tenable. He has also stated that while posted in District Siddharth Nagar she has been drawing House Rent Allowance which is admissible to an incumbent posted in Rural Local Area. Thus, it cannot be said that she was posted at the Primary School situated in Urban Local Area and hence she has to be necessarily transferred and posted only to a Primary School situated in a Rural Local Area. It has also been asserted by the learned counsel representing the respondents that before considering the claim of the petitioner the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich had called for a report from Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar who also in his report has stated that Primary School Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar falls in Rural Local Area and not in Urban Local Area. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. The submission made by learned counsel appearing for Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari needs to be rejected for the reasons which are given below:- The Primary Institutions in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh which were earlier being run and managed under the supervision and administrative control of the Zila Panchayats and several Urban Local Bodies are now being run and managed by the Basic Education Board constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972. The said Act, 1972 has been enacted to provide for establishment of the Basic Education Board and matters connected thereof. On and from the date of commencement of the said 1972 Act, the control of teachers and properties of the Basic Schools situated both in the Municipal Areas and the Gram Panchayats were taken over under the statutory provisions contained in the said Act by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Second 2(e) of 1972 Act defines a local body to mean Zila Panchayat or Municipality as the case may be. Second 2(f) defines Municipality to mean a Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation as the case may be. Thus, for the purpose of 1972 Act, the local body includes the Rural Units of self governance as well as the Urban Local Bodies of self governance. As far as the service conditions of the teachers of these institutions are concerned, statutory rules have been framed, which are known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, which inter alia defines Rural Local Area to mean the area over which a Zila Parishad exercises jurisdiction. Urban Local Area has been defined to mean the area over which a Nagar Mahapalika Municipal Board, Town Area Committee, or Notified Area Committee exercises jurisdiction. Thus, the 1972 Act and the Service Rules 1981 lay down clear distinction between the Urban Local Area and Rural Local Area. These institutions situated both in an Urban Local Area and Rural Local Area are to be governed and managed by the provisions of the Service Rules 1981. An institution which falls under a Zila Panchayat will be an institution situated in Rural Local Area and an institution situated in a Nagar Mahapalika, Municipality, Town Area Committee, Notified Area Committee or any other such body of Urban Local self governance will be an institution situated in Urban Local Area. On account of rapid urbanization, there may be a situation when an institution at the time of its establishment or creation may be situated in a Rural Local Area and by passage of time with the development around such an institution, the same institution may fall within the local limits of an Urban Local Body. As is abundantly clear from various documents annexed along with writ petition, it appears that Primary School Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar was established in a Rural Local Area, however, with the passage of time the said area appears to have been included within the area of an Urban Local Body. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the form containing certain informations relating to Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar as Annexure 4 to the writ petition wherein it has been stated that it is situated within the limits of an Urban Local Body. The said document appears to have been counter signed by the Block Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar. Similarly when the Nagar Palika Parishad, Siddharth Nagar was likely to be re-constituted, a direction was issued to Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar to run the accounts of Ward Shiksha Nidhi under the joint signature of the Headmaster/Headmistress and another Assistant Teacher. The said instructions are contained in letter dated 14th April, 2012 addressed to Block Shiksha Adhikari of various development blocks including development block, Naugarh which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to this writ petition. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the petitioner while working as Headmistress of Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar was allowed to operate the aforesaid account of Ward Shiksha Nidhi under the Joint Signature of herself and another Assistant Teachers. This fact is established from perusal of page 22 of the writ petition which is part of Annexure 5. Yet another document which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish that the Jawahar Nagar Primary School situated in Urban Area is the annual work plan and budget issued for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of District Siddharth Nagar which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition wherein the Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar has been shown to be in Urban Area and Primary School, Jawahar Nagar Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar has also been shown to be situated in Ward Ramjam Nagar of the Municipality concerned, thus from the said document i.e. annual work plan and budget of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which is a scheme being run by the Education Department itself, it is clear that Primary School, Jawahar Nagar is situated in Ward Ramjan Nagar of the Municipality concerned. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the voter list of Ramjan Nagar, District- Siddharth Nagar which was prepared for the purpose of election of Nagarpalika Parishad, Siddharth Nagar. The petitioner appears to have been entrusted with the census work relating to census 2011. The Ward Ramjam Nagar has been shown to fall within the Nagar Palika Parishad, Siddharth Nagar in the document relating to census work which is available at page 31 of the writ petition. The aforesaid documents relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Annexures 4, 5, 6 and 7 have not been disputed by the respondents. Thus, so far as the current situation of Primary School Jawahar Nagar , Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar is concerned, undisputedly, the same falls in the Urban Local Area. So far as submission made by learned counsel appearing for Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari that in her application made by the petitioner seeking her transfer she has herself descried the institution to be situated in the Rural Area and that she has been drawing house rent allowance applicable to an incumbent serving in the Rural Area and that the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad while passing the transfer order dated 14th August 2012 has described the institution to be situated in Rural Local Area, are concerned, it may only be indicated that it appears that the records of the Education Department in District-Siddharth Nagar/Basti have not been updated. As already observed above, it is not a very unlikely situation that at the time of establishment of Primary School it may be situated in a Rural Local Area, however, with the passage of time the institution may get included within the limits of Urban Local Body. This is continuous process and if with the continuity of the process of urbanization and declaration of more and more Urban Local Bodies. District Education Department is not able to keep pace with the changes inasmuch as it does not upgrade its own regard, petitioner cannot be faulted with it. Thus, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2014 which has been passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich rejecting the claim of the petitioner, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The consequential posting order of the petitioner dated 19th December, 2012 by which she has been posted at Primary School, Tepraha Chak Tajwapur, District- Behraich is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the Zila Basic Education Officer, Behraich to post and place the petitioner in a Primary School situated within an Urabn Local Area at Behraich within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and order. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 20.4.2015 Subodh/- UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
UPTET - - कैंसर पीड़िता को विशेष परिस्थिति के अनुसार 5 वर्ष सेवा अवधि से छूट देकर ट्रांसफर दिया था , अब यही नियम पति पत्नी , व महिलाओं को विशेष परिस्थिति में ट्रांसफर देने में सहायक बना , बिभा की याचिका के बाद सैकड़ों याचिकाओं में महिलाओं को कोर्ट ने विशेष राहत दी , अनुपालन के बाद कंटेम्प्ट तक दाखिल हुआ , लेकिन अभी मामला आधार में है सरकार के लगभग सभी विभागों में पति पत्नी दोनों के सरकारी कर्मचारी होने की स्थिति में एक ही स्थान पर पोस्टिंग के लिए नियमावली बनी हुई है , ऐसे में बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग के गले की फ़ांस बन रही है 5 वर्ष की सेवा बाध्यता , कोर्ट ख़ारिज कर चुका है 5 वर्ष की न्यूनतम सेवा अवधि को
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 7 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 333 of 2017 Petitioner :- Mohd. Arif And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.Of Up Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Kanhaya Pal,Pooja Pal,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Saurabh Shankar Srivastav,Surendra Pratap Singh,Suresh Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Akhilesh Chandra Srivasta,Manish Mishra,Mayankar Singh,Shobhit Kant,U.N. Mishra,Upendra Nath Mishra AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 795 of 2017 Petitioner :- Faheem Beg Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunesh Singh Pawar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Akhilesh Ch Srivastava,Akhilesh Chandra Srivasta,Anupam Mehrotra,Manish Mishra,Narendra Kumar Pandey,Narendra Singh Chauhan,Sameer Kalia,U.N. Mishra,Upendra Nath Mishra AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 489 of 2017 Petitioner :- Manju Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Edu.Basic Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,U.N. Mishra AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4677 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Rajan & 29 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Krishan Kanhaya Pal,Pooja Pal,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra,Suresh Chandra AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2857 of 2017 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Sharma,Devendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2945 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt Neelam Yadau Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Jauhari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. As common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all the above writ petitions have been heard together. In all these writ petitions, various orders have been challenged by which hundred of teachers were transferred by the Board. These transfers were inter district transfers. It is pertinent to mention that the cadre of teachers under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 is a district level cadre and inter district transfers are permissible only in terms of Rule 21 with the approval of the Board as an exception. The writ petitions have been filed by those who have not been transferred but who feel aggrieved by the same on a belief that by such transfers their promotions to the post of Head Master, for which they claim to be eligible would be adversely affected. On being confronted, Shri Karunesh Pawar and others appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions submit that most of these transferees were officiating on the post of Head Master in their original districts, therefore, consequent to these transfers, they would continue as Head Masters in the transferred district also i.e. Lucknow, meaning thereby corresponding number of promotional posts of Head Master would be occupied by them, thereby prejudicing the claim of the petitioners for being considered for promotion against such posts which are substantively vacant in the district of Lucknow. Shri Anupam Mehrotra and other counsels appearing for the interveners and affected persons submit that in view of rule 22 of the Rules known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, on such inter district transfers, the transferees would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferred district, therefore, officiation on the post of Head Master being based on seniority there is no way, their clients would be entitled to officiate as Head Master unless they are the senior most in the respective schools. This Court passed an interim order dated 25.01.2017 in the connected writ petition bearing no. Writ Petition No. 333 (S/S) of 2017 in the following terms:- " Subject matter of this bunch of writ petitions relates to inter-district transfer of the teachers working in Basic Schools. On 03.01.2017, an order has been passed by the State Government effecting certain inter-district transfers of the teachers on the eve of notification for ensuing elections for Legislative Assembly in the State of U.P. issued by the Election Commission. The posts of teachers in primary schools as well as Junior High Schools form district-wise cadre and in service jurisprudence transfer of a member of a particular cadre is normally not permissible to another cadre unless anything contrary to the said legal position exists in the rules governing conditions of the service of members of such a cadre. The conditions of service of the teachers in these institutions are governed by the statutory rules, namely, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, which have been framed under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 21 as it exits today is quoted herein below:- "21. Procedure for transfer.- There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban 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." According to the aforequoted Rule 21, inter-district transfer can be effected only on the request of the teacher concerned or with his consent and not otherwise, that too, only with the approval of the U.P. Basic Education Board. The rule making authority while framing Rule 21 was conscious of the fact that transfer of any member of one cadre to the other is legally not permissible and as such has consciously provided that the same can be effected only in case a request is made by the teacher or he gives his consent for such transfer. The provision further states that any such transfer can be effected only with the approval of the U.P. Basic Education Board. The order dated 03.01.2017, passed by the State Government, however, does not disclose that prior to passing of the said order, any approval of the U.P. Basic Education Board was obtained. For the purpose of effecting transfer of teachers working in Basic Schools run and managed by the Basic Education Board, the State Government has issued an order on 23.06.2016 laying down in detail the policy to be followed for the purpose of effecting inter-district transfers. The said Government Order is, in fact, referable to Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 which empowers the State Government to give directions to be carried out by the Basic Education Board from time to time for efficient administration of the said Act. The Government Order dated 23.06.2016 permits the transfer only on application to be moved on-line giving certain details as required in Clause 3(2) of the said Government Order. The Government Order further prescribes that on moving application on-line with certain details which are relevant for the purpose of seeking an effective transfer, the matter shall be considered by the District Basic Education Officer and Basic Education Board in a transparent manner. A perusal of the order dated 03.01.2017 clearly reveals that the same is not only in violation of statutory Rule 21 of the Service Rules but is also in derogation of Government Order dated 23.06.2016, which too, would have statutory force being referable to Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Any government policy enunciated either by promulgating any Statue or Statutory Rules or even by issuing a simple executive order binds every one including the government which promulgates the same. Prima-facie, it appears that while passing the order dated 03.01.207, the State Government has acted in complete derogation of the policy which was framed by it and by which government also stands bound. Let the aforesaid issues be explained by some responsible officer of the State Government in the department of Basic Education, not below the rank of Special Secretary to be nominated by the Principal Secretary/Secretary, who shall be present before the Court for its assistance on the next date of listing. List/put up this case on 27.01.2017. Learned Chief Standing Counsel will communicate this order to the authorities concerned without waiting for its certified copy. Learned Chief Standing Counsel is also requested to assist the court in this case. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Upendra Nath Misra shall also be shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent. " Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 27.01.2017 whereupon this Court passed the following order which reads as under:- "Pursuant to order dated 25.01.2017, Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education is present. He has stated that after issuance of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the State Government has issued another Government Order dated 19.12.2016 providing therein that in terms of the earlier transfer policy embodied in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the remaining on-line application forms submitted by the teachers seeking their inter-district transfers can be considered in terms of the earlier policy itself. The Government Order dated 19.12.2016 is taken on record. However, on a query being put to him as to whether before passing the transfer order dated 03.01.2017 whereby several inter-district transfers of the teachers has been effected, prior approval of the Basic Education Board, as is required to be taken under Rule 21 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, was taken or not, it has been stated by Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary that no such approval was sought before passing the order dated 03.01.2017. Such a course adopted by the State Government while passing the transfer order on 03.01.2017 is not only against the statutory provisions contained in Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules but is also in violation of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. It is noticeable that the Government Order dated 19.12.2016 permitted consideration of remaining on-line applications only in terms of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 and as such without seeking approval of the Basic Education Board, no such inter-district transfers could have been effected. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is not only that only one order on 03.01.2017 effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers was passed but there are several such orders. Learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Special Secretary present today has stated that in fact on 03.01.2017 two orders effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers have been passed by the State Government. He has also stated that these two orders passed on 03.01.2017 contain lists of teachers most of whom had submitted off-line applications, which was impermissible under the Rules and the Government Order. Such a procedure of effecting inter-district transfer is neither contemplated in Rule 21 of the Rules nor in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. This bunch of writ petitions contain averments that while effecting inter-district transfers of teachers, the Basic Education Board and the respective Basic Shiksha Adhikaris have not followed the priority as contemplated in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. There appears to be large scale discrepancies in the inter-district transfers made by the respondents. Any statute or statutory Rules or even a Government Policy is binding on the Government as much as it is binding on others. The facts of this case clearly establish that State Government has acted against its own norms which are embodied in the Service Rules, 1981 and the Government order dated 23.06.2016. Further, despite prescribing that only on-line applications seeking inter-district transfer shall be considered, the State Government while passing at least two orders on 03.01.2017 has considered off-line applications of teachers and passed orders thereon, which has not only resulted in making the process adopted by the Government non-transparent but has also deprived several teachers of the opportunity of making applications. Such a course adopted by the State Government is, thus, prima facie, arbitrary and also suffers from the vice of malice in law as prima facie there is no justification for deviation from the prescribed norms. Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, operation and implementation of these two orders said to have been issued by the State Government on 03.01.2017 effecting inter-district transfers of the teachers in Primary and Junior High Schools in the State of U.P. are hereby stayed. The teachers who have been transferred in terms of the said orders will not be allowed to work and discharge their duties at the places of their new posting. They shall, however, be permitted to discharge their duties in the schools where they have been working prior to passing of the orders on 03.01.2017 by the State Government. Let counter affidavit be filed in these matters by the respondents within a period of two weeks. One week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period showing the name of Sri Upendra Nath Mishra as counsel for the respondent. It will be open to the teachers who are affected by the order passed on 03.01.2017 by the State Government to seek their intervention in this case. " On a perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is found that Shri D.P. Singh, Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education, who had appeared before this Court admitted to the fact that the transfers had been effected without seeking the approval of the Board as was mandatory under rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, and the Government order dated 23.06.2016 which was applicable in view of the subsequent Government Order dated 19.12.2016. Certain other discrepancies were also noted by this Court. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners herein have not been transferred nor they are seeking transfer, they are concerned with their entitlement for being considered for promotion to the post of Head Master. As regards, the contention of Shri Pawar that these transfers prejudice the rights of the petitioners to be considered for the promotion against the post of Head Master for the reason already noted hereinabove, and, on a bare perusal of Rule 22 (3) there is no doubt that such transferees would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of teachers of the corresponding class or category pertaining to the local area to which he has been transferred, as on the date orders for transfer are passed. If it is so, unless off course such transferees are the only personnel available in the institution, they would not hold the post of Head Master on officiating basis and such situations would be rare. First and foremost, it is the validity of such transfers which is to be seen, as, if the transfers are held to be invalid then the apprehension of the petitioners regarding prejudice to their right of consideration for promotion would be rendered imaginary, therefore, once in the order of this Court dated 27.01.2016 certain discrepancies with regard to the inter district transfers have been noticed and a statement had also been made by the Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education in this regard, which has been recorded therein, thus, considering the fact that now there is a change at the helm of officers and any apprehension in the mind of petitioners about lack of bonafide would now be allayed, therefore, considering the cumulative effect of all the factors, the ends of justice would be met if the State Government itself revisits the transfers already been made by the impugned orders, keeping in mind the observations of this Court and the recitals contained in the interim order dated 27.01.2016, subject to a right of representation to the petitioners as also the interveners and those seeking impleadment and the like who may submit such representation within 15 days of receipt of copy of this order and the State Government takes a decision as regards their validity considering such representation with expedition. While taking a decision as aforesaid, the Government shall strictly adhere to the observations made by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 55 of 2017 vide order dated 20.02.2017 that transfers made offline are not in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It shall also keep in mind that the cadre of Assistant Teacher is a district level cadre and inter district transfer is an exceptional measure not to be made routinely except in terms of Rule 21 of 1981 Rules and also as to whether such transfers made were justified and legal. Apart from the above, based on the decision to be taken as aforesaid, claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Head Master/ Assistant Teacher (Upper Primary) shall also be considered accordingly dependent upon the decision as aforesaid, with expedition. As far as the salary payable to the transferred employees since January, 2017 is concerned, the Court is of the view that if they had not been permitted to work at the place of their original posting or had already been relieved or were prevented by other justifiable reasons from working, they would be entitled to arrears of salary as per Rules since January, 2017 with continuity in service and a decision in this regard shall be taken as aforesaid. The decision as regards the validity of the impugned transfers shall be taken by the State Government within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the claim of the petitioners for promotion herein shall be considered accordingly within next three months. In the meantime, all the transferees shall be allowed to join at the transferred place with the condition that none of the transferees shall officiate on the post of Head Master, unless off course they are the senior most and even if they are the senior most in the institution, it may be permitted only as a temporary arrangements subject to the post in question being filled substantively by promotion etc. under the relevant Rules. All the interveners/impleadment applications are allowed with the right of hearing which has already been extended to them. As far as intervention application No. 45919 of 2017 in writ petition No. 333 (SS) 2017 is concerned, the counsel appearing on behalf of Sandhya Kumari Tiwari, applicant, whose intervention is hereby allowed, submits that she has been suffering from cancer and it is on this request that she had been transferred from Shravasti to Unnao as she is undergoing treatment at KGMC Lucknow. Although he says that, strictly speaking, the tenure of three years of service prescribed in the Government Order was not fulfilled but then in the exceptional circumstances this step was taken that too online through Integrated Grievance Redressal System. In view of the aforesaid, considering the extreme hardship, it is clarified to the extent that this order shall not come in the way of the joining of the applicant Sandhya Kumari Tiwari at the transferred place at Unnao as also her continuance at the said place. She shall be paid salary for the due period. Her case shall not be open to reconsideration. All writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 3.5.2017 Ashish /Rahul
हजारों शिक्षामित्रों की उम्मीदों पर फिरा पानी उत्तर प्रदेश शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) का परिणाम जारी हो चुका है। मात्र 11.11 फीसदी परीक्षार्थी सफल हो पाए जिससे खासतौर पर शिक्षामित्र आश्चर्यचकित और दुखी हैं। उधर, अब शिक्षक भर्ती की भी तैयारी शुरू हो गई है, लेकिन शिक्षामित्रों के लिए सारे दरवाजे बंद हो चुके हैं। इससे वे ठगा सा महसूस कर रहे हैं। टीईटी के लिए कुल नौ लाख 76 हजार 760 अभ्यर्थी पंजीकृत हुए थे। प्राथमिक स्तर की टीईटी के लिए कुल तीन लाख 49 हजार 192 तथा उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर के लिए कुल छह लाख 27 हजार 568 पंजीकरण हुए। इसमें 1.37 लाख वे शिक्षामित्र भी शामिल थे, जिनका समायोजन निरस्त हुआ था। समायोजन में शेष रह गए 26000 शिक्षामित्रों ने भी टीईटी के लिए आवेदन किया था। इसमें आठ लाख आठ हजार 348 अभ्यर्थी शामिल हुए। अलग-अलग संख्या क्रमश: दो लाख 76 हजार 636 एवं पांच लाख 31 हजार 712 रही। प्राथमिक स्तर के लिए सबसे ज्यादा आवेदन शिक्षामित्रों ने ही किए लेकिन परिणाम में प्राथमिक स्तर पर मात्र 47 हजार 975 अभ्यर्थियों के सफल होने से शिक्षामित्रों को बड़ा झटका लगा है। शिक्षामित्र संघर्ष समिति के जिलाध्यक्ष अश्वनी त्रिपाठी के मुताबिक टीईटी में करीब 88 फीसदी शिक्षामित्र असफल हो गए। शिक्षामित्रों की चिंता का कारण यह भी है कि वे लंबे समय से परिषदीय विद्यालयों में सेवाएं देते रहे। फिर सरकार ने नियमित किया। उनका कहना है कि समायोजन रद्द होने के बाद टीईटी में शामिल होने का मौका मिला तो शिक्षामित्रों ने कोचिंगों का सराहा लिया। टीईटी देने के बाद काफी शिक्षामित्रों ने शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा की तैयारी के लिए भी कोचिंग शुरू कर दी थी लेकिन परिणाम ने उनकी उम्मीदों पर पानी फेर दिया। इलाहाबाद। यूपी टीईटी में असफल होने के बाद शिक्षामित्रों को अब केंद्रीय शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (सीटीईटी) का सहारा है। इसके लिए आवेदन की प्रक्रिया फरवरी 2018 में शुरू होने की संभावना है। शिक्षामित्र संघर्ष समिति के जिलाध्यक्ष श्री अश्वनी त्रिपाठी का कहना है कि समायोजन रद्द होने के बाद प्रदेश सरकार ने जिस तरह शिक्षामित्रों की मदद का भरोसा दिलाया था, परिणाम जारी होने के बाद उनमें सरकार के प्रति निराशा है। कहा कि अब ज्यादातर शिक्षामित्र सीटीईटी की तैयारी कर रहे हैं क्योंकि इसमें सफल होने पर भी शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा में शामिल होने का मौका मिल सकेगा। टीईटी में सफल होने वालों की संख्या काफी कम है तो बड़ी संख्या में अभ्यर्थियों के परिणाम भी रुक गए हैं। परीक्षा के दौरान काफी अभ्यर्थियों ने ओएमआर में प्रश्न पत्र का सीरीज नंबर गलत दर्ज कर दिया। ओएमआर में अन्य तरह की गड़बड़ियां भी सामने आई हैं। इसकी वजह से हजारों अभ्यर्थियों के परिणाम अवैध हो गए। परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी कार्यालय की वेबसाइट पर ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों के परिणाम में इनवैलिड शो कर रहा है
विज्ञापित विषय की डिग्री पर ही दिया जा सकता क्वालिटी प्वाइंट मार्क विधि संवाददाता, इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि क्वालिटी प्वाइंट मार्क्स उसी विषय की डिग्री पर दिया जा सकता है जिसमें सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती का विज्ञापन निकाला गया था। विज्ञापित विषय से इतर दूसरे विषय की स्नातक डिग्री को क्वालिटी प्वाइंट देने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है, क्योंकि यह व्यवस्था भर्ती में शामिल अभ्यर्थियों में से योग्यतम अभ्यर्थियों के चयन के लिए अपनाई गई है। जिससे कि संबंधित विषय के पढ़ाने वाले योग्यतम अध्यापक नियुक्त हो सकें व शिक्षा की गुणवत्ता में सुधार हो सके। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति एसपी केशरवानी ने रवींद्र बाबू श्रीवास्तव व अन्य समेत दर्जनों याचिकाओं को स्वीकार करते हुए दिया है। कोर्ट ने एलटी ग्रेड के सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में संबंधित विषय के परास्नातक डिग्री को ही क्वालिटी प्वाइंट मार्क्स देने को सही माना है। 1संबंधित सभी संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशकों/सक्षम प्राधिकारियों को संबंधित विषय पर स्नातक डिग्री को क्वालिटी प्वाइंट अंक देकर तीन महीने में चयन प्रक्रिया पूरी करने का निर्देश दिया है। कोर्ट ने कहा है कि विज्ञापित विषय से इतर किसी विषय की डिग्री को क्वालिटी प्वाइंट मार्क्स देना शासनादेश की गलत व्याख्या करना है। याचिका पर वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता राधाकांत ओझा, विभु राय ने बहस की। नियुक्ति व कार्यभार ग्रहण करने पर रोक मालूम हो कि प्रदेश के राजकीय माध्यमिक विद्यालयों में क्षेत्रीय संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशकों ने 2012 में 1425 एलटी ग्रेड सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती का विज्ञापन निकाला। जिसमें परास्नातक डिग्री धारकों को क्वालिटी प्वाइंट मार्क्स देने की व्यवस्था की गई। लेकिन, इसकी गलत व्याख्या करते हुए विषय से इतर दूसरे विषय के परास्नातकों को अंक दिए गए। कई को नियुक्ति पत्र भी जारी हो गया। कोर्ट ने नियुक्ति पर रोक लगा दी और चयनितों को कार्यभार ग्रहण करने से रोक दिया गया है UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com http://joinuptet.blogspot.com Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTETUptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
