Sarkari Naukri Recruitment Result टीईटी शिक्षक भर्ती TET UPTET BETET Merit/Counselling/Appointment

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Breaking News - पहले महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की लिस्ट आएगी , इस कारण पुरुषों की नेक्स्ट हियरिंग डेट 12 अप्रेल कर दी है , एक और ऑर्डर से जानकारी मिली है की छूटे लोगों को मौका मिलने से लिस्ट सम्भवत अप्रैल के पहले आना मुश्किल -

Breaking News - पहले महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की लिस्ट आएगी , इस कारण पुरुषों की नेक्स्ट हियरिंग डेट 12 अप्रेल कर दी है ,
एक और ऑर्डर से जानकारी मिली है की छूटे लोगों को मौका मिलने से लिस्ट सम्भवत अप्रैल के पहले आना मुश्किल  -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4950 of 2018

Petitioner :- Anuruddha Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Kant Trigunait,Lakshmi Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar,Bhanu Pratap Singh

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
On the matter being taken up on 07.02.2018 the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-
"Connect with Writ Petition Nos.3219 of 2018, 5025 of 2018, 5004 of 2018, 4992 of 2018, 4948 of 2018, 4937 of 2018, 4841 of 2018, 4821 of 2018, 4740 of 2018, 4735 of 2018, 4729 of 2018, 4640 of 2018, 4621 of 2018, 4615 of 2018, 4611 of 2018, 4568 of 2018, 4525 of 2018, 4471 of 2018, 4400 of 2018, 4231 of 2018, 4055 of 2018, 4048 of 2010, 3897 of 2018, 3853 of 2018, 3649 of 2018, 3499 of 2018, 5127 of 2018 and 5107 of 2018.
The present bunch of matters relates to Assistant Teachers posted at different schools run by Basic Education Board seeking transfer.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner working as Assistant Teacher, whose services are governed in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short "the Rules of 1981") as well as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008, amended Rules, 2010, seeks transfer on the medical ground as he is suffering from ailment of kidney and also having blood pressure and the doctors have referred him for treatment at Medical College, Kanpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions contained under Para-4 (8) (kha) of the order dated 13.6.2017, which talks about the teachers, who are suffering from serious diseases but no relaxation is made with regard to five years satisfactory service and as such the same is arbitrary and in violation to Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981. Various other grounds have also been taken in the connected writ petitions.
Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, who represents third and fourth respondent pray for and are accorded ten days time to file response in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 26.02.2018 for further hearing along with all connected matters.
Let a copy of this order be given to learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav appearing for third and fourth respondents free of cost for necessary compliance."
Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 05.03.2018 and the Court has passed the following order:-
"Shri P.K. Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate appearing for third, fifth and sixth respondents are accorded one week's time to file response in the matter. Three day's, thereafter, time is accorded to the petitioner to file Rejoinder Affidavit.
List this matter on 19.03.2018 alongwith record of Writ Petition no.30538 of 2017 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others). Petitioner's counsel would be at liberty to make a mention for taking the matter out of turn."
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel placed the instructions dated 19.03.2018 sent by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad, which is taken on record.
On the basis of instructions, he informs the Court that pursuant to the judgment and order rendered on 6.2.2018 in Writ A No.2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and 21 others vs. State of UP and 2 others) the process for transfer of ladies teachers under Section 8 (2 (D) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 as amended Rule 2010 is going on and at the final stage.� The online applications have already been invited and the date for submission of the same has also expired.� It is submitted that in case any intervention is made at this stage, there would be complete chaos in the department, and as such hearing of the present matter relating to the transfer of male teachers may be deferred so that the aforesaid list may be finalised.
The request so made is accepted.� List this matter on 12.04.2018 along with all connected matters. Petitioners' counsel would be at liberty to make a mention for taking up the matter out of turn.
Order Date :- 19.3.2018
SP/

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 UPTET Uptet | 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,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Transfer News - झारखंड में भी यू पी की तरह महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की नियमावली है, लेकिन कोर्ट ने इस नियम को विरुध्द नहीं माना, और रिट खारिज की -

Transfer News - झारखंड में भी यू पी की तरह महिलाओं के ट्रांसफर की नियमावली है, लेकिन कोर्ट ने इस नियम को विरुध्द नहीं माना, और रिट खारिज की -

हमारी समझ से केस ये है की :
झारखण्ड के केस में महिलाओं को पति या होम टाउन किसी भी स्टेट में ट्रांसफर लेने का चांस था ,
लेकिन पुरुषों के लिए केवल होम टाउन में ट्रांसफर का चांस था ,
जब झारखण्ड और बिहार अलग हुए तो बहुत से पुरुषों के होम टाउन बिहार में रह गए म जबकि वे काम झारखण्ड में कर रहे थे ,
इससे झारखण्ड में उनका होम टाउन नहीं रहा , और वे झारखंड में ही ट्रांसफर के हक़दार रहे |
महिलाओं थोड़ा फायदे में रहीं की उनके पति का निवास स्थान अगर बॉर्डर / बिहार से सटे इलाकों के आस पास के जिले में होगा तो वहां पति की जॉब के आधार पर ट्रांसफर ले कर झारखण्ड में ही बिहार के नजदीक आ गयी होंगी |

लेकिन पुरुष होम डिस्ट्रिक्ट में ही ट्रांसफर ले सकते थे जो की झाखंड में नहीं है , और बिहार में रह गया तो उन्हें इस होम डिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर नियम का फायदा नहीं मिल पाया , उन्होंने आर्टिकल 16 (2 ) के समानता के आधार पर रूल को नियम विरुध्द करने की कोशिश की लेकिन सफलता नहीं मिली

महिलाओं व पुरुषों के लिए पृथक रूल होने पर आर्टिकल 16 (B) को आधार बना कर ट्रांसफर रूल रद्द कराने की कोशिश की थी ,

लेकिन कोर्ट ने इसको अल्ट्रवॉयरस (नियम विरुध्द ) घोषित नहीं किया

Jharkhand High Court

Anil Kumar Choudhary And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 2 April, 2008

Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) JCR 624 Jhr

Author: M K Vinayagam

Bench: M K Vinayagam, D Patnaik

JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a declaration that Rule 4(2)(6) of the Bihar State Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994, as adopted by the Government of Jharkhand under the provisions of Section 85 of the Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000 is ultra vires to the extent it lays down the eligibility of Home District necessary for inter-district transfer of the male teachers on the ground that the same is against the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:

(i) The petitioners were appointed on the post of Elementary Teachers in January 2000. Some of the petitioners were posted at Palamau and some of the petitioners were posted at Latehar.

(ii) They have completed five years of minimum service in the Government of Jharkhand. They filed their application for inter-district transfer in view of Rule 4 of the Bihar State Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994.

(iii) The District Education Establishment Committee considered the applications for inter-district transfer and their names were recommended to the Director, Primary Education, but their applications were, ultimately returned by the Director, Primary Education on the ground that the petitioners belonging to the district of Latehar did not fulfill the criteria of home district.

(iv) Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 lays down the condition under which any teacher can be transferred from one district to another and Rule 4(2) (5) lays down that during entire service tenure of any teacher inter-district transfer shall be done only once.

(v) Rule 4(2)(6) provides that in case of male teachers, they can be transferred in their home district in case of inter-district transfer, but the same Rule provides that In case of female teachers, they have been given three options in case of inter district transfer and according to this Rule, they can be transferred to their Home District or to the Home District of their husband or to the place of posting of their husband.

(vi) The aforesaid provisions were not amended after re-organisation of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, as a result of which the petitioners, whose home district fall within the territory of re-organised State of Bihar have been denied the benefit of inter-district transfer.

(vii) On account of re-organisation of States, all the petitioners, whose home districts fell within the territory of re-organised State of Bihar, have settled in one or the other districts within the re-organised State of Jharkhand and are having residence within the State of Jharkhand and it is on this account that they prayed for inter-district transfer from their place of posting district to the district of their permanent residence.

(viii) But, in the instant case, the petitioners have been denied inter-district transfer only on the ground that their home district is not falling in the Jharkhand State.

(ix) Therefore, the Rule 4(2)(6) of the Rules, 1994 and Amended Rules, 1997 duly adopted by the State of Jharkhand is ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India as it lays down the criterial of only Home District in case of male teachers as a necessary eligibility for inter-district transfer.

3. In elaborating this point, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue at length and cite 2003 (1) JCR 3 (Jhr) (Spl. Bench).

4. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the State would submit that it is not ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, namely, 2003 (1) JCR 3 (Jhr) (Spl. Bench) is not applicable to the present case as the said judgment relates to the definition of local persons, which is a totally different matter.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.

6. The main ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to challenge the relevant Rules is restrictions of inter-district transfer from one district to another is ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

7. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the cadre of elementary teachers, i.e., the petitioners is a district cadre. At the initial point of appointment, itself, the elementary teachers are appointed at district level. The very appointment of the petitioners has been made on district cadre for a particular district.

8. The rule framed by the Government is in the form of relaxation, which is being granted to elementary teachers allowing them inter district transfer only once in their entire service tenure subject to conditions among other that the transfer shall be made in respect of male teachers in their home district only. The said relaxation had been granted keeping in view the fact that for a certain period, the district cadre employees should be allowed to serve in their home districts in order to increase their efficiency in their working.

9. The main contention by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said relaxation granted in favour of the elementary teachers, male and female is contrary to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, on the ground that after re-organisation of the States, the petitioners' services are in the State of Jharkhand whereas their home districts belongs to the State of Bihar, thereby they cannot avail the benefit of the said Rule. This contention is not tenable because reorganisation of the State is a fait accompli and merely because of the petitioners home district, after bifurcation, falls in the successor State, it does not render the rule framed by the Government as ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

10. According to the Recruitment Rules from the beginning the appointment of elementary teachers are done strictly on the recommendation of the competent authority. Under such circumstances, candidates for the post of elementary teachers are given liberty to apply from the district of their choice and after fulfilling the requisite qualification, they are appointed in the district.

11. Since the cadre of elementary teachers is district cadre, normally they are allowed to be transferred within the district according to the provisions of Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994 and amended Rules, 1997. There is a provision for inter-district transfer in certain cases, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in the provisions of the said mentioned Rules and those conditions are applicable to every teacher of the elementary school who are desirous of inter-district transfer. As such, the provisions laid down in the said Rules by way of relaxation are not contrary to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

12. The inter-district transfer is not a general transfer for an employee, who belongs to district cadre, i.e., in the case of district cadre, the employees are required to work within the district during the entire service tenure, as such, it cannot be contended that it is contrary to Article 16(2)of the Constitution of India.

There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, It is dismissed.

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | 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,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Monday, March 19, 2018

UPTET News -72825 शिक्षक भर्ती के बचे हुुुए पदों पर भर्ती पूर्ण करने हेतु कोर्ट् ने सरकार को कानूनानुसार निर्णय लेने को कहा, देखें आदेश

UPTET  News -72825 शिक्षक भर्ती के बचे हुुुए पदों पर भर्ती पूर्ण करने हेतु कोर्ट् ने सरकार को कानूनानुसार निर्णय लेने को कहा,
देखें आदेश

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8129 of 2018

Petitioner :- Nirdesh Tiwari And 27 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Chandra Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are before this Court to issue direction to the respondents to complete the recruitment process for remaining 1536 posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and issue appointment letters in their favour in the light of decision of Apex Court dated 25.7.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 (State of UP and ors vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others).
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have already filed a representation dated 09.03.2018 before the respondent no.2 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow for redressal of their grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that the petitioners' representation dated 08.03.2018 may be considered by the appropriate authority.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents has no objection to the said prayer.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Lucknow to decide the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 19.3.2018
SP/

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 UPTET Uptet | 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,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Thursday, March 15, 2018

कोर्ट: ट्रांसफर सिर्फ गाइड लाइंस के आधार पर हो सकते हैं

कोर्ट: ट्रांसफर सिर्फ गाइड लाइंस के आधार पर हो सकते हैं,

The Government Order with regard to the service conditions of the physically handicapped employees, with regard to transfer is only to be treated as guidelines for the Government, which do not give any enforceable right to an employee to challenge the transfer as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas (supra).

Madras High Court

S.Sandira vs The Chairman on 7 January, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 07.01.2011

Coram

THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.No.22351 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

S.Sandira ... Petitioner

.. Vs ..

1. The Chairman,
Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric
Technical Education (PIPMATE),
Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008.

2. The Member Secretary,
Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric
Technical Education (PIPMATE),
Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008.

3. S.Rajangam ... Respondents

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent having ref. Ref.No.A/6/2/1/PIPMATE/2010-11/A3/690, dated 03.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to refer the Petitioner to the medical Board Government of Puducherry to decide whether the petitioner is a disabled person entitled to the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, dated 29.12.2005 and the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.23/97, dated 04.03.1997 issued by the Government of Puducherry and thereafter retain the Petitioner as Librarian in the Women's Polytechnic, Lawspet in the event of the respondents finding the petitioner to be a physically disabled person.

For Petitioner : M/s.Kavitha Deenadayalan

For RR-1 and 2 : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
For R-3 : Mr.Karthik
- - - - -

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.09.2010, vide which, the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic College, Yanam. The transfer has been ordered on the request of the third respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that she is a physically disabled person due to moderate hearing impairment from her childhood. In the year 1985, she got herself examined by the Government Medical Officer, Puducherry, where she was found to be deaf as per the definition mentioned in the National Employment Service Manual, which defines deaf as follows:-

"The deaf are those in whom the sense of hearing is non-functional for ordinary purposes of life. They do not hear understand sounds at all events having hearing loss more than 90 decibels in the better ear (profound impairment) or total loss of hearing in both ears."

2. Though the petitioner was physically disabled person, her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the PIPMATE in the year 1990 against general category for the post of Library Attender. She was selected and joined the post by availing age concession applicable to disabled persons.

3. The petitioner submits that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, (Law Division) vide their letter having Ref.F.No.10/46/94-LD/NHRC, dated 14.03.1995 forwarded its recommendations to the State of Puducherry to notify the guidelines to improve the service conditions of the disabled/physically handicapped employees working in different sectors. The recommendation were accepted by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.23/97-West (Sw.II), dated 04.03.1997 was issued by the Government of Puducherry.

4. Clause 15 of the Government Order reads as under:-

"15. The disabled/Physically handicapped employees shall be posted in/transferred to an office nearer to his/her residence or in a place of his/her choice, even by transferring the normal persons, if vacancy is not available."

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore was that as the petitioner is a disabled person, she is entitled to the protection of Government Order referred to above and that the transfer order is liable to be set aside.

6. In order to ascertain the disability of the petitioner, this Court directed the Chief Medical officer, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry, to constitute a medical board for assessing the medical disability of the petitioner. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was medical examined, and on the basis of medical test, Medical Board certified as under:-

C E R T I F I C A T E "Certified that Thiru/Tmt. Sandira, working as Librarian in the Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry, has appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2010 and we members of the Medical Board are of the opinion that NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT HEARING HANDICAPS MODERATE HEARING IMPAIRMENT, II(a)."

7. The disability pointed out on the petitioner is as under:-

Category Type of Impairment DB level Speech discrimination Percentage of impairment II (a) Moderate hearing impairment 41 to 60 dB in better ear 50 to 80% in better ear 40 % to 50% Thus the petitioner does not fall within the definition of deaf as given in National Employment Service Manual.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Clause 15 of the Government Order issued by the Government to regulate the service conditions of the handicapped person also, referred to Section 2(i) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which reads as under:-

"2(i) "disability" means -

(i) blindness;

(ii) low vision;

(iii) leprosy-cured;

(iv) hearing impairment

(v) locomotor disability;

(vi) mental retardation;

(viii) mental illness;"

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is to be treated as disabled, in terms of Clause 15 of the Government Order referred to above. As discussed above, in view of definition of deaf given in National Employment Service Manual, the hearing impairment of petitioner cannot be said to be the level of deafness.

10. In support of his contention that the disabled persons are not to be transferred, the petitioner placed reliance on a Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of V.K.Bhasin Vs. State Bank of Patiala and others decided on 03.08.2005, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that the person with disability is entitled protection under the Government Order, against the transfer.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents contended the plea of the petitioner on the ground, that the guidelines do not give enforceable right to the employee to challenge the order of transfer, specially when the petitioner has been performing her duties at the present place of posting for almost 20 years.

12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that on true interpretation of Government Order, the protection can be given to disabled persons to a limited extent that no inconvenience is caused in performing the duties, on account of disability suffered by the disabled employee. Facts of each case are required to be seen. The employee in garb of minor disability cannot seek protection against the Service Rules.

13. In support of the contention that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit under the Government Order, regarding the service conditions of disabled person, reliance was placed on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of A.V.V.Satyanarayana Vs. Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad and others reported in 1999(4) ALD 255, wherein, the transfer of physically handicapped person was upheld by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2444, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court was pleased to laid down as under:-

"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."

14. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition, for the reason that the objects and reasons of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - read as under:-

"Statement of Objects and Reasons The meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled Persons 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region. India is a signatory to the said proclamation and it is necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the following:-

(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities;

(iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-a-vis non-disabled persons;

(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;

(v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and

(vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream.

2. Accordingly, it is proposed to provide inter alia for the constitution of Co-ordination Committees and Executive Committees at the Central and State levels to carry out the various functions assigned to them. Within the limits of their economic capacity and development the appropriate Governments and the local authorities will have to undertake various measures for the prevention and early detection of disabilities, creation of barrier-free environment, provision for rehabilitation services, etc. The Bill also provides for education, employment and vocational training, reservation in identified posts, research and manpower development, establishment of homes for persons with severe disabilities, etc. For effective implementation of the provision of the Bill, appointment of the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities at the Central level and Commissioners for persons with disabilities at the State level clothed with powers to monitor the funds disbursed by the Central and State Governments and also to take steps to safeguard the rights of the persons with disabilities is also envisaged.

3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."

15. So the provisions of the Act, have to be interpreted to advance the object, i.e., to give equality to the disabled person with others. Therefore, it is to be seen that disabled employee does not suffer any inconvenience in performance of duties of office and that he/she is not discriminated on account of disability. The perusal of the report of Medical Board shows that the disability suffered by the petitioner is not the one, which can cause inconvenience to petitioner in performance of her duties at different places of posting.

16. The case of the petitioner is not that she is physically disabled to such an extent which can affect the movement of the petitioner (as was the case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court) in any way, as the disability suffered by her is of moderate hearing impairment.

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected against the general category and not against the seats reserved for disabled persons. Therefore, the guidelines on which strong reliance has been placed by the petitioner, are for the Government to consider, as to whether grave injustice is caused to the handicapped person by transfer or that the disability is likely to come in the way of the employee in performing the duties at transferred place. The guidelines would not give any enforceable right to the disabled person, to claim absolute right against the transfer, which is incident of service, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas (supra).

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that though the petitioner was appointed in general category, but she was given age concession by treating her to be physically handicapped. This contention of the learned counsel also does not advance the case, for the reasons mentioned above.

19. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any hardship is likely to be caused to the petitioner by transfer. The Government Order with regard to the service conditions of the physically handicapped employees, with regard to transfer is only to be treated as guidelines for the Government, which do not give any enforceable right to an employee to challenge the transfer as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas (supra).

20. Finding no merit in the writ petition it is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

jrl To

1. The Chairman, Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008.

2. The Member Secretary, Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry 605 008

Breaking News - 19 मार्च को मेल टीचर ट्रांसफर की सभी कनेक्टेड याचिकाओं पर होगी सुनवाई -

Breaking News - 19 मार्च को मेल टीचर ट्रांसफर की सभी कनेक्टेड याचिकाओं पर होगी सुनवाई -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3539 of 2018

Petitioner :- Prajesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Na

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Ref: Correction Application
It appears that due to inadvertence the aforementioned writ petition has been disposed of in the light of the order dated 6.2.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and 21 others versus State of U.P. and 2 others) whereas the matter relates to male transfer and the same is liable to be connected alongwith record of Writ-A No. 4950 of 2018.
Correction application is allowed.
Connect alongwith record Writ-A No. 4950 of 2018.
Order Date :- 13.3.2018

Ravi Prakash

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4950 of 2018

Petitioner :- Anuruddha Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Kant Trigunait,Lakshmi Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar,Bhanu Pratap Singh

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Shri P.K. Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate appearing for third, fifth and sixth respondents are accorded one week's time to file response in the matter. Three day's, thereafter, time is accorded to the petitioner to file Rejoinder Affidavit.
List this matter on 19.03.2018 alongwith record of Writ Petition no.30538 of 2017 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others). Petitioner's counsel would be at liberty to make a mention for taking the matter out of turn.
Order Date :- 5.3.2018
A. Pandey

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4950 of 2018

Petitioner :- Anuruddha Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Kant Trigunait,Lakshmi Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar,Bhanu Pratap Singh

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Connect with Writ Petition Nos.3219 of 2018, 5025 of 2018, 5004 of 2018, 4992 of 2018, 4948 of 2018, 4937 of 2018, 4841 of 2018, 4821 of 2018, 4740 of 2018, 4735 of 2018, 4729 of 2018, 4640 of 2018, 4621 of 2018, 4615 of 2018, 4611 of 2018, 4568 of 2018, 4525 of 2018, 4471 of 2018, 4400 of 2018, 4231 of 2018, 4055 of 2018, 4048 of 2010, 3897 of 2018, 3853 of 2018, 3649 of 2018, 3499 of 2018, 5127 of 2018 and 5107 of 2018.
The present bunch of matters relates to Assistant Teachers posted at different schools run by Basic Education Board seeking transfer.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner working as Assistant Teacher, whose services are governed in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short "the Rules of 1981") as well as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008, amended Rules, 2010, seeks transfer on the medical ground as he is suffering from ailment of kidney and also having blood pressure and the doctors have referred him for treatment at Medical College, Kanpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions contained under Para-4 (8) (kha) of the order dated 13.6.2017, which talks about the teachers, who are suffering from serious diseases but no relaxation is made with regard to five years satisfactory service and as such the same is arbitrary and in violation to Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981. Various other grounds have also been taken in the connected writ petitions.
Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, who represents third and fourth respondent pray for and are accorded ten days time to file response in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 26.02.2018 for further hearing along with all connected matters.
Let a copy of this order be given to learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri A.K. Yadav appearing for third and fourth respondents free of cost for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.2.2018
SP/

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 UPTET Uptet | 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,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

News - कोर्ट ने कहा कि जब ऑनलाइन ट्रांसफर के लिए एप्लाई ही नही किया तो फिर ट्रांसफर के लिए कोई निर्देश नही दे सकते, याचिका खारिज -

News - कोर्ट ने कहा कि जब ऑनलाइन ट्रांसफर के लिए एप्लाई ही नही किया तो फिर ट्रांसफर के लिए कोई निर्देश नही दे सकते, याचिका खारिज -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7765 of 2018

Petitioner :- Ranjana And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Garg
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Khare

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.
The petitioners are before this Court with request to issue direction to the respondents to consider their grievance for transferring them from the District Chitrakoot to District Banda. Further prayer has been made to command the respondents to take a final call on the representation of the petitioners dated 01.02.2018.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 6.2.2018 in Writ A No.2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and 21 others vs. State of UP and 2 others), detailed publication was made by the Board wherein the applications for inter-district transfer were invited; even the last date for making such an application for inter-district transfer has also been expired and at this stage, as the petitioners have not applied online for inter-district transfer, no reprieve can be extended to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the said situation.
Once this is factual situation, that in pursuance of the publication so made by the Board, the petitioners have not applied for their transfer from District Chitrakoot to District Banda, then no direction can be issued to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad to decide the claim set up by the petitioners.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2018
A. Pandey

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 UPTET Uptet | 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,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Monday, March 12, 2018

Breaking - महिलाओं के विरुध्द ट्रांसफर में समानता के नियम का हवाला देकर रूल 8 2(d) को रद्द करने के लिए कल डबल बेंच में होगी सुनवाई -

Breaking - महिलाओं के विरुध्द
ट्रांसफर में समानता के नियम का हवाला देकर रूल 8 2(d) को रद्द करने के लिए कल डबल बेंच में होगी सुनवाई -

Rule 8 2(d) में महिलाओं को विशेष परिस्थिति में ससुराल/पति निवास स्थान पर तबादले के लिए 5 वर्ष के सेवा अवधि से छूट दी गई है, अब पुरुष याची ने महिलाओं के लिए इस ट्रांसफर रूल को रद्द करने की याचिका डाली है, जिसको आज सिंगल बेंच में सुना गया, कल डबल बेंच में सुना जाएगा

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. - 23

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7026 of 2018

Petitioner :- Shaukeen Ahmad And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Basic Edu.Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Notices for respondents no. 3 and 4 have been accepted by Sri Ghaus Beg whereas notices for respondents no. 1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.
By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the vires of Rule 2(d) of Rule 8 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Posting) Rules, 2008. The aforesaid Rules have been framed under section 19 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.
Since the vires of the aforesaid Rules have been assailed, therefore, this writ petition is amenable before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Therefore, list before the appropriate Bench on tomorrow i.e. 13.3.2018 as fresh.
Order Date :- 12.3.2018
Om
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | 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,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

अंतर्जनपदीय तबादलों पर कोई स्टे न होने के बावजूद भी अफवाहों का बाजार गर्म, भ्रामक खबरें जिले के अंदर तबादले की याचिकाओं से बढ़ी मुश्किल, सचिव ऑफिस में विशेष परिस्थिति ट्रांसफर पर परीक्षण जारी -

अंतर्जनपदीय तबादलों पर कोई स्टे न होने के बावजूद भी अफवाहों का बाजार गर्म, भ्रामक खबरें जिले के अंदर तबादले की याचिकाओं से बढ़ी मुश्किल, सचिव ऑफिस में विशेष परिस्थिति ट्रांसफर पर परीक्षण जारी -

न्यायालय व सरकार के नियमो के अनुसार :- Transfer is not a matter of Right.
Normally court will not interfere in policy decision of transfer.
विशेष परिस्थितियों में ट्रांसफर के लिए केंद्र व राज्य सरकार समय समय पर नीति बनाती है, और विभिन्न विभागों को नीति बनाने के लिए निर्देश भी जारी करती है।

इन्हीं कारणों से कोर्ट ने अभी हाल के कुछ ऑर्डर्स में याची के लिए कहा कि ऑनलाइन आवेदन के बाद 3 हफ्तों में याची के ट्रांसफर आवेदन पर निर्णय लेकर उसको निस्तारित करें।
फिलहाल कोई स्टे नहीं है, जल्द ही अंतर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण की लिस्ट देखने को मिलेगी।

नीचे दी गई खबर से कोई परेशान होने की जरूरत नहीं :-