UPTET : Important Information Given By Mr. Naved regarding Allahabad High Court case on 2nd May 2012

UPTET : Important Information Given By Mr. Naved  regarding Allahabad High Court case on 2nd May 2012

From: Naved Ahmed <navedahmeds@gmail.com>
Date: 2012/5/4
Subject: USELESS DECISION BY COURT
To: muskan24by7@gmail.com

USELESS DECISION ON 2-5-12 as BTC/VBTC are already exempted from
TRAINING OF 6-MONTHS as PER MODIFIED VIGYAPTI WHICH WAS ISSUED AFTER 2
DAYS OF MAIN VIGYAPTI.

http://bed.up.nic.in/tet4.pdf

The page no.9 of that modified VIGYAPTI clears that BTC/VBTC will directly appointed as ASST. TEACHER not as APPERENTICE TEACHER

COURT's DECISION ON 02-05-2012
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1841708


Case :- WRIT - A No. - 76039 of 2011

Petitioner :- Yadav Kapildev Lal Bahadur
 Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Rajesh Yadav
 Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S. Kushwaha

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
 Matter has been heard at length.
 The issue which needs clarification is as to whether the persons like  the petitioners, who have already undergone B.T.C. Training and are  graduate and have also cleared T.E.T., would further be required to be  appointed as Teachers' Trainee in terms of the advertisement and the  corrigendum issued on 02.12.2011 or else they would be appointed directly in Parishadiya Vidyalaya as Assistant Teachers, being  possessed of all prescribed minimum qualification in terms of U.P.  Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 or not.
 Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Standing Counsel seeks time to file an affidavit of  the Secretary.
 Let him do so by the next date.
 List on 15.05.2012 along with Writ Petition No. 29 of 2012.
 Interim order to continue till then.
 Order Date :- 2.5.2012

THE already CONNECTED case:
 http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1610695

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29 of 2012

Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash Kushwaha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.A. Aktar,Rajeshwar Singh

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that advertisement dated  2.12.2011 (Annexure 7 to writ petition) is not consistent with Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as  ?
1981 Rules?) as amended from time to time and has been issued in a  wholly illegal manner inasmuch under the Rules the advertisement is to  be issued by appointing authority, but it has been issued by District
 Basic Education Officer which is wholly illegal.
 Sri Rajeshwar Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of  respondents 2, 3 and 4 after receiving instructions from respondent  no. 2 stated that the said advertisement has been issued under the
 instructions received from Secretary, Basic Education. In the  circumstances, respondents 1 to 4 are directed to file their  affidavits within ten days explaining the provisions under which the  said advertisement has been issued. They shall also file reply to the  averments made in various paragraphs of writ petition.
 List on 19.1.2012.
 In the meantime, it is directed that the selection, if any, under 1981  Rules, may go on but no appointment shall be made unless the procedure  prescribed under 1981 Rules is strictly followed by respondents.
 Dt. 4.1.2012