Friday, May 31, 2013

BIGGEST UPTET RELATED ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TRIPLE BENCH DECISION


BIGGEST UPTET RELATED ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TRIPLE BENCH DECISION 





As Allahabd High court Triple Bench Decision is Very Large and Unable To Publish It on Blog at One Go.
Therefore I am Publishing Important Points -


Important Point -
------------------

This Full Bench has been called upon to resolve the controversy that has arisen out of a reference made by a learned single Judge doubting the correctness of the judgment in the case of Prabhakar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 651, relating to the compulsion of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test as prescribed under the Notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended on 29.7.2011 for appointments on the post of an Assistant Teacher for an Elementary Basic School (classes I to V). Even though there are three questions framed by us, the issue which requires a resolution is the binding effect of the aforesaid Notification that has been issued by the National Council for Teacher Education while prescribing a minimum standard to be possessed by a candidate aspiring to become a Teacher of elementary education. 




To address the issue involved, we had heard the matter and framed 3 questions as follows:-

"(a)        What does the phrase "minimum qualifications" occurring in Section 23 (1) of the right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and it insistence by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.8.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?

(b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the Notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 issued by the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers? What is the significance of the words "shall also be eligible for appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education"?

(c)           Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?" 




3. Sri R.A. Akhtar for the National Council for Teacher Education has emphasized that the power of the Council is very much available and the argument that it did not have the authority to prescribe the Teacher Eligibility Test as a qualification is unfounded. Sri Singhal and Sri Akhtar, therefore, relied on the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 as well as the Notifications issued from time to time to urge that all the Notifications read together with the Notification dated 23.8.2010 would leave no room for doubt that the Teacher Eligibility Test is compulsory for all classes of Teachers, who are seeking appointment in Schools, imparting elementary education without exception. 




At the national level a debate was going on and a Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. B.G. Kher recommended the incorporation of Article 45 of the Constitution in the Chapter of Directive principle of State policy which read as under:-

"Article 45-- The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years." 


Article 45 as amended now reads as under:-

"Article 45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.--The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years."

And Article 21-A is quoted herein below:-

"21-A. Right to education.-- The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine." 



Teacher eligibility test is an additional norm laid down by the Academic Authority which according to the decision of Preeti Srivastava's case serves the definition of qualification. The contention therefore raised by Sri Agrawal that the teacher eligibility test is not a qualification has to be rejected. It is not a part of something which is to be possessed at the minimum. It has to be possessed in addition to the educational and training qualification


To further understand as to why the teacher eligibility test is a qualification one can refer to the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 where the background and rationale for conducting the said test has been referred. We may mention at the outset that the said guidelines had totally escaped the notice of the division bench and its ingredients while proceeding to treat the teacher eligibility test to be not necessary for the candidates falling under Clause 3 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The guidelines provide that persons to be recruited as teachers should possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the elementary level. The consequences were explained by the rationale that it would bring about national standards and bench mark of teacher quality in the recruitment process. It would further induce teacher education institutions to improve their performance standards and a positive signal to all stake holders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality. This rationale therefore justifies the teacher eligibility test as an additional norm apart from the educational and training qualifications. 




This is fortified by Clause 5 of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 which says that a person who has acquired the academic and professional qualification under the notification dated 23.8.2010 shall be eligible for appearing in the teacher eligibility test. This Clause leaves no room for doubt that all classes of candidates possessing the academic and professional qualifications would be eligible to appear in the teacher eligibility test and therefore it is a norm which is compulsory for all classes of teachers including those who fall within Clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010. 



The next is the structure and content of the test which has five sections in relation to examination for Classes 1 to 5 with which we are presently concerned. These five sections are Child Development and Pedagogy, Language 1 - focussing on proficiency relating to medium of instruction, Language 2- an optional language, Mathematics and Environmental Studies. The test items for the last two subjects should be correlated with concepts of problem solving ability and pedagogical understanding of the subject. 



At this stage the importance of Child Development and Pedagogy deserves to be emphasised in the backdrop of the social environment that requires a mention when the province is facing not only a shortage of numbers, but an acute shortage of duly qualified and educated teachers at the primary level.

Our court is fully aware of the huge problems that are being faced in this branch of elementary education with the influx of temporary methods of providing instruction through teachers like Shiksha Mitra and Preraks. In this background, the emphasis of quality teachers attains more importance.


The subject of Child Development and Pedagogy assumes importance and consequently a teacher eligibility test no longer remains a mere eligibility test but becomes the most essential qualification to be possessed for being appointed as a teacher

Many children are victims of apathy and wrongly motived parental treatment. Their emotional and skilful assessment, and proper treatment, has to be handled within the clinic of an elementary school where the sole physician is none else than a trained teacher. A candidate possessing a mere educational or a training qualification without any genuine attribute may not necessarily be a good teacher.





Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwaraha Guru Saakshat Para Brahma Tasmai Sree Gurave Namaha" 


It may be emphasised that there is no challenge raised to such appointments against rules, but the law is certain that appointment de-hors the rules cannot be said to be valid. After the enforcement of the notification dated 23.8.2010 every candidate aspiring to become a teacher of elementary education in any of the institutions defined under the 2009 Act has to be possessed of the qualifications prescribed therein. The intention therefore of the legislature is clear that no teacher without such a qualification can be allowed to continue as a teacher in the institution.
We wish to clarify that the binding effect of the notifications and the guidelines is such that the weightage which is contemplated under the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 cannot be ignored. The minimum score that is required of a candidate is 60% to pass the teacher eligibility test. A concession of 5% has been made in favour of the reserved category candidates including the physically challenged and disabled persons.
 This norm therefore cannot be diluted. Apart from this, the State Government has to take notice of the fact that weightage has to be given in the recruitment process as well. It is for the State Government to suitably adopt the said guidelines and we do not wish to add anything further at this stage as we are only concerned with the essentiality of the qualification of the teacher eligibility test to be possessed by any candidate aspiring to be appointed as a teacher.





We wish to make it clear that the law has to be followed in the manner in which it has been legislated. It cannot be diluted on account of the inaction of the State. In such circumstances all teachers whose appointment relate to the period after 23.8.2010 have to be possessed of TET.

Coming to the arguments advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, who contends that the entire judgement should be overruled on both counts, we may make it clear at the outset that the finding in the first part of the reported judgment contained in paragraph Nos. 34 to 53 thereof relate to the stand of all such candidates, who have acquired the academic and the training qualifications prior to 23.8.2010, to urge that they should be appointed in the same fashion as was being done earlier without any compulsion of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test. They are in essence seeking appointment by virtue of an interpretation of clause 5 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 to contend that since the Advertisement for the training qualifications had already been issued earlier, and the same amounts to initiation of the recruitment process, and therefore, such candidates should be appointed without undergoing the test. A similar argument has been advanced by Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Alok Mishra on this issue.

We are unable to find any error in the reasoning contained in Paras 34 to 53 of the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh's case on this count for the reasons given hereinabove and hereinafter and we, therefore, approve the judgment to the aforesaid extent.

Sri Khare has then proceeded to expand his argument in relation to the unsure status of the cut off date of the applicability of the Notifications. We are not impressed by this argument inasmuch as we have already concluded herein above that the power under Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act, overrides the field on this aspect and once the qualifications have been fixed in exercise of such powers, the same cannot be avoided by the State Government by any delay of implementation of such qualifications. The State has no choice but to apply the Notification dated 23.8.2010 with immediate effect.

Sri Khare has then advanced his submissions on some issues more but we do not find it necessary to answer the said arguments as they do not come squarely within the reference which has to be answered by us. We are, therefore, confining ourselves basically to the questions referred and the correctness of the judgment in Prabhakar Singh's case in relation thereto. 




We have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava for those candidates who are seeking impleadment and contend that they were candidates of special BTC course 2007 and 2008 entitled to be appointed as Teachers along with their counterparts, who have been offered appointment without having passed the Teacher Eligibility Test. The Intervener Application has been filed by Prabhakar Singh and another in Writ Petition No.12915 of 2013 filed by Prit Pal Singh, in which the present reference has been made.

The contention of these applicants is that they were already fighting the litigation pertaining to their qualification before the Supreme Court even though they were applicants pursuant to the Advertisements dated 17.7.2007 and 19.1.2008. The judgment of the Apex Court in favour of these candidates in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi was delivered in October 2010 whereby they were also held to be eligible as they were having the training qualification which were acquired from the outside the state.

The candidates of the same batch, whose qualifications were not doubtful, had already been appointed and were also appointed after the Notification dated 23.8.2010. In the aforesaid circumstances, the interveners cannot be discriminated and they were also entitled for being appointed without having passed the Teacher Eligibility Test.

To justify their stand the first argument raised by Sri Srivastava is that such applicants, who had applied against the vacancies of 2007, would continue to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher under the Rules that were existing then. The qualifications have, therefore, to be seen on the date of advertisement that was then issued for the purpose of inviting candidates for training of special BTC course. They, therefore, insist that the advertisement that was made prior to 23.8.2010 for imparting the special BTC Training course would govern the process of appointment of such candidates including the petitioners as the vacancies were existing then.

The argument, therefore, appears to be that if the vacancy relates to the advertisement for training prior to 23.8.2010 then the said vacancy will have to be filled up under the old rules and the method of recruitment as was then existing and not by the qualifications now prescribed under the Notification dated 23.8.2010.

We are unable to agree with this proposition inasmuch as the process of recruitment would begin from the date of advertisement under Rule 14 of 1981 Rules. The advertisement for imparting special BTC training is not an advertisement for selection and appointment as an Assistant Teacher. This aspect is already covered by the first part of the judgment in Prabhakar Singh's case which has followed the ratio in the case of Devendra Singh (supra) where the Apex Court has clearly indicated that the process of recruitment would begun with the advertisement under Rule 14. In the circumstances, the vacancies were yet to be advertised for recruitment and, therefore, no appointment process had commenced so as to be saved under the provisions of Clause 5 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The employer has a right to alter it's rules of recruitment and in the instant case it is by a statutory intervention that the qualifications have been prescribed afresh w.e.f. 23.8.2010 apart from the existing qualifications in the 1981 Rules. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 2 SCC 315, that the qualifications have to be seen at the time of recruitment which ratio also appears to be on similar lines in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner Vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and another, AIR 2007 SC 1746. The Notification dated 23.8.2010, therefore, alters the status of these candidates as they were not under the process of recruitment as defined under Rule 14. The argument of Sri Srivastava that clause 5 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 saves the interveners from appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test, therefore, cannot be accepted.



The next contention is that candidates who have not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test, have been appointed even after 23.8.2010. As already indicated by us, if the process had not begun by any advertisement as required under Rule 14, the petitioners cannot claim parity with such candidates. They will, therefore, have to undertake the Teacher Eligibility Test as, in fact, they have not entered the recruitment process or appointment as yet. The allegation that the State cannot adopt two yardsticks is not the issue inasmuch as the point to be resolved is as to whether the Teacher Eligibility Test is a necessary qualification or eligibility condition for the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in an elementary School after the Notification dated 23.8.2010 or not. If the State has proceeded to act contrary to rules, then the same cannot be a ground for claiming equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State which is not in accordance with law or was an action under the transitory phase of the issuance of the rules and adoption of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 cannot enure any advantage to the interveners. The contention that rights had accrued in their favour prior to 23.8.2010, therefore, cannot be supported in law in the light of the observations made herein above.

The contention of Sri Srivastava that the candidates have a legitimate expectation also cannot be accepted as the legitimacy of an expectation has to be founded on the basis of some right. The letters of the Secretary of the Board, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are administrative communications which cannot over ride the effect of Rule 14. If a promise was made by the State that the appointment will be made as soon as the training is completed, the same would not mean that rule 14 has not to be complied with. The letter issued by the Basic Education Board or by the Secretary or the Director cannot be treated to be either an executive instructions or Government Order that may be enforced as a matter of law over and above Rule 14.

Sri Srivastava then proceeded to give another turn to the argument by contending that the Notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education was unauthorised and did not have the force in law inasmuch as the Central Government issued the authorisation on 1.4.2010 whereby the National Council for Teacher Education was empowered to lay down the minimum qualification as the academic authority.

The National Council for Teacher Education had issued the norms of minimum qualification on 31.3.2010 which was prior to the authorisation under the Notification dated 1.4.2010. Sri Srivastava, therefore, submits that if the Notification for fixing the minimum qualification had arrived one day earlier to the authorisation under the Act itself, the same has no legal force. The argument at first flush appears to be attractive but on a perusal of Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1901, the said argument has to be rejected outright. The authorisation had come on 1.4.2010 but the process of authorising the National Council for Teacher Education had commenced and it was issued one day earlier i.e. on 31.3.2010. The same was, however, published on 5.4.2010 i.e. after the authorisation had been issued by the Central Government. The norms laying down minimum qualifications, therefore, would come into effect from 5.4.2010 and not from 31.3.2010. It stands saved under Section 22 of the General Clauses Act as referred to herein above. This aspect is also supported by a couple of judgments of the Apex Court cited by the learned Counsel for the Central Government and the State reference whereof has been noticed in connection with Section 23-A of the U.P. General Clauses Act in the Division Bench judgment, State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh Narain, 2008 (71) ALR 926.

The next contention raised that the minimum qualifications fixed in addition to Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules do not in any way take away the impact of the existing qualification under Rule 8 and, therefore, such candidates, who possess the qualification as prescribed under Rule 8, cannot be excluded. Needless to mention that the Rules have already been amended and the Teacher Eligibility Test also forms part of the amended Rules under the 1981 Rules relied upon by the learned counsel. Even prior to the amendment of Rule 8, the contention that there is no prohibition of considering the candidates without the Teacher Eligibility Test is a misconceived argument. The rules, which had not been amended, were obviously not in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Central Government under the 2009 Act. Thus, the State Government cannot afford to ignore the said Rule or make appointment of candidates, who were not possessed of such qualifications. The argument that the word "minimum" does not mean only, is a misconceived argument inasmuch as, minimum means the least that has to be possessed. It does not mean that other qualifications cannot be prescribed or if prescribed cannot be read in addition to minimum qualification. The argument, therefore, raised by Sri Srivastava also does not come to his aid and in our opinion the Teacher Eligibility Test has to be passed by a candidate before he seeks appointment of Assistant Teacher after the promulgation of the Notification dated 23.8.2010.

Another argument advanced is that the State Government framed Rules under Section 38 of the 2009 Act on 27.7.2011 which indicates that there was a requirement to frame Rules in view of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Act or else they would have been automatically covered. This argument is also misconceived inasmuch as the definition of the word "Institution" in the 2009 Act has been lost sight of by the learned counsel which includes all the Institutions as are indicated under the 2009 Act.

Sri Srivastava then contends that the judgment in the case of Prabhakar Singh causes discrimination between the candidates who have the special BTC training course and those who are having only BA and B.Ed. qualifications by exempting the latter class from appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test. We have already indicated above that this part of the judgment in Prabhakar Singh's case deserves to be overruled as no such exemption has been granted by the provisions under the Notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended later on. In the aforesaid circumstances, this argument also deserves to be rejected.

One of the crucial arguments on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution that has been advanced is that the judgment under reference creates two classes of Teachers and the State Government has also discriminated one category of candidates namely those who were entitled to be appointed even prior to that. This argument has been advanced on the strength of the admitted position that candidates without having passed the Teacher Eligibility Test appointed even after 23.8.2010 belong to the category of special BTC course of 2007 and 2008 and also compassionate appointees.

The response of the State Government is that some appointments have been cancelled but so far as those teachers who have already been appointed and have been working even though they have not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test, their chapter should be treated as closed. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Addl. Advocate General, has categorically stated this on instructions from the State Government. Thus, there exist a certain class of Teachers, who have been appointed after 23.8.2010 and do not possess the Teacher Eligibility Test qualification. They have also been appointed under the old prevalent practice of not facing any fresh selection after advertisement under Rule 14 and have been appointed immediately after training. They were appointed against the vacancies which were far above than the available number of candidates and, therefore, their appointment was almost a foregone conclusion.

Since this issue has been advanced time and again and has been canvassed by both the sides, we may put on record that the issue of law as referred has been categorically laid down by us and the appointments have to be made only in accordance with the aforesaid position of law. We do not wish to add anything further leaving the question raised above open to be debated and decided in appropriate cases as this is not a point of reference.

The questions that have been therefore framed by us are answered as follows:-

1. The teacher eligibility test is an essential qualification that has to be possessed by every candidate who seeks appointment as a teacher of elementary education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the notification dated 23.8.2010 which notification is within the powers of the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act.

2. Clause 3(a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 is an integral part of the notification and cannot be read in isolation so as to exempt such candidates who are described in the said clause to be possessed of qualifications from the teacher eligibility test.

3. We approve of the judgment of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case to the extent of laying down the interpretation of the commencement of recruitment process under Clause 5 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 but we disapprove and overrule the ratio of the said decision in relation to grant of exemption and relaxation from teacher eligibility test to the candidates referred to in Clause 3 (a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010, and consequently, hold that the teacher eligibility test is compulsory for all candidates referred to in Clause 1 and Clause 3 (a).

Let the judgement be accordingly placed before the respective benches for appropriate orders.

Order Date: 31.05.2013
Irshad

*******************************
Most Important Points Which Arises From This Decision is -


We wish to clarify that the binding effect of the notifications and the guidelines is such that the weightage which is contemplated under the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 cannot be ignored. The minimum score that is required of a candidate is 60% to pass the teacher eligibility test. A concession of 5% has been made in favour of the reserved category candidates including the physically challenged and disabled persons.
 This norm therefore cannot be diluted. Apart from this, the State Government has to take notice of the fact that weightage has to be given in the recruitment process as well. It is for the State Government to suitably adopt the said guidelines and we do not wish to add anything further at this stage as we are only concerned with the essentiality of the qualification of the teacher eligibility test to be possessed by any candidate aspiring to be appointed as a teacher. 


We wish to make it clear that the law has to be followed in the manner in which it has been legislated. It cannot be diluted on account of the inaction of the State. In such circumstances all teachers whose appointment relate to the period after 23.8.2010 have to be possessed of TET.



The questions that have been therefore framed by us are answered as follows:-

1. The teacher eligibility test is an essential qualification that has to be possessed by every candidate who seeks appointment as a teacher of elementary education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the notification dated 23.8.2010 which notification is within the powers of the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act.

2. Clause 3(a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 is an integral part of the notification and cannot be read in isolation so as to exempt such candidates who are described in the said clause to be possessed of qualifications from the teacher eligibility test.

3. We approve of the judgment of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case to the extent of laying down the interpretation of the commencement of recruitment process under Clause 5 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 but we disapprove and overrule the ratio of the said decision in relation to grant of exemption and relaxation from teacher eligibility test to the candidates referred to in Clause 3 (a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010, and consequently, hold that the teacher eligibility test is compulsory for all candidates referred to in Clause 1 and Clause 3 (a).

Let the judgement be accordingly placed before the respective benches for appropriate orders.





BLOG SADA SE JO BAAT KEHTAA AAYAA VHE BAAT AAJ ALLAHABAD HC KI TRIPLE BENCH NE BHEE KEH DEEE



Thursday, May 30, 2013

UPTET : Candidates and Confusion on Recruitment



UPTET : Candidates and Confusion on Recruitment 


भर्ती जब भी होगी नियमों  के मुताबिक होगी ,  हमारे या आपके चाहने से कुछ नहीं होता । 

किस तरह से अच्छे शिक्षक चुने जायेंगे किस तरह से बुरे शिक्षक चुने जायेंगे या कोन सा चयन का तरीका अच्छा है ,  कोन सा बुरा है , इस सबकी बात चयन प्रक्रिया शुरू होने से पहले होती है । 
अन्यथा राह चलता कोई बेहतरीन शिक्षक मिले तो क्या किसी नियुक्त हो चुके शिक्षक को हटा कर उसको रख लेंगे । 

तमिल नाडू में शिक्षकों की भर्ती एम्प्लॉयमेंट एक्सचेंज में रजिस्टर हुए अभ्यर्थी की सिनिओरिटी के आधार पर किया जाता है और तमिल नाडू हाई कोर्ट ने इस व्यवस्था पर आपत्ति जाहिर की है क्यूंकि कुछ अभ्यर्थी 57 वर्ष की उम्र में भर्ती हुए |

कई अभ्यर्थीयों का मानना है की सिर्फ एक परीक्षा के आधार पर भर्ती कैसे सही  है । 
ये हो सकता है कि मल्टी लेवल एग्जाम व्यवस्था अच्छी हो या फिर गुणांक + टी ई टी परीक्षा के अंक या कोई अन्य व्यवस्था 
मगर तमिल नाडू में बगेर किसी परीक्षा के एम्प्लॉयमेंट एक्सचेंज की सिनिओरिटी के आधार पर भर्ती के बारे में ऐसे लोगो का क्या कहना है 
काफी समय से यू पी में भी सिर्फ अकादमिक अंको के आधार पर भर्तीयां हुई और कोई परीक्षा नहीं हुई तो क्या वह गलत है । 
वास्तव में एन सी टी ई ने टी ई टी परीक्षा के माध्यम से एक व्यवस्था दी जिससे छोटे बच्चों को अच्छी व गुणात्मक शिक्षा मिल सके । 
क्या कोई व्यक्ति पढाई  में अच्छा है इंजीनिरिंग ग्रेजुएट / पेशेवर है मगर बी .एड / बी टी सी नहीं की तो क्या उसको विद्यालय  शिक्षक चयन  में  ट्रेंड शिक्षको ( जिन्होंने बी . एड / बी टी सी की हो  )से बेहतर माना जाएगा । 
मेरे अनुसार तो किसी भी पद के चयन  लिए एक विशेष योग्यता होती है । 
क्लर्क ,इंजीनियर , डाक्टर , मजदूर , कुक आदि 





प्राथमिक शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति किसी टॉपर , वैज्ञानिक , पेशेवर विषय विशेषज्ञ की नहीं और टी ई टी परीक्षा विशेषकर प्राथमिक के बच्चों के लिए आयोजित की गयी थी । 

नियोक्ता जरूरत के मुताबिक शिक्षकों की चयन पद्दति निर्धारित करता है बशर्ते वह एन सी टी ई के नियमों के अनुरूप हो , कई राज्यों में टी ई टी के अंको को भी चयन में उचित वेटेज दिया गया और अकादमिक अंको को भी । 

अत ये कहना कि  टी ई टी के अंको को भर्ती के उपयोग में नहीं लिया जा सकता या फिर अकादमिक अंको को भर्ती में उपयोग में नहीं लिया जा सकता , दोनों ही बातें ठीक नहीं है । 

एन सी टी ई ने अकादमिक अंको को चयन में उपयोग में लेने के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहा हालाँकि टी ई टी के अंको को वेटेज देने की बात नियोक्ता पर छोडी है । 
सी टी ई टी अपने विज्ञापन में इस बाबत  टी ई टी के अंक सुधार हेतु पुन : परीक्षा की बात भी कहती है अर्थात अगर अभ्यर्थी चाहे तो अपने टी ई टी के अंक सुधार हेतु पुन : परीक्षा में बैठ सकता है । 

NCTE Says -

9(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process
however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for 
appointment

टी ई टी अंकों के  सुधार  / वृद्धी   हेतु  , अभ्यर्थी पुन : परीक्षा  में   बैठ  सकते -
See :
Frequency of conduct of TET and validity period of TET certificate :-
11 The appropriate Government should conduct a TET at least once every year. The Validity Period of TET qualifying certificate for appointment will be decided by the appropriate Government subject to a maximum of seven years for all categories. But there will be no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a TET Certificate. A person who has qualified TET may also appear again for improving his/her score




इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट की ट्रिपल बेंच के फेसले के आने के बाद काफी कुछ  स्थिति साफ़ होगी । 


If you have any good opinion then you can share through comments.

CTET Candidates can Check their Online Application for Correction



सीटीईटी अभ्यर्थी करें आवेदन की जांच 
CTET Candidates can Check their Online Application for Correction

For any correction, it can be done from 16th to 27th June 2013.

Kindly verify details from CTET website - ctet.nic.in and CBSE website.

सीटीईटी परीक्षा के लिए 15 मार्च से 16 अप्रैल तक हुए थे आवेदन

 केंद्रीय माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद ने शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा के आवेदकों को अपने आवेदन शुल्क के बारे में जानकारी अपडेट करने के लिए व्यवस्था शुरु की है। इसके तहत अभ्यर्थी वेबसाइट डब्ल्युडब्ल्युडब्ल्यु डॉट सीटीईटी डॉट एनआईसी डॉट इन पर जाकर अपने आवेदन पत्र और आवेदन शुल्क की स्थिति की जांच कर सकते हैं। 1सीटीईटी परीक्षा के लिए 15 मार्च से 16 अप्रैल तक आवेदन किए गए थे। वहीं अभ्यर्थी 15 जून तक आवेदन पत्र की स्थिति की भी जांच कर सकते हैं। 16 से 27 जून तक ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्रों में संशोधन किया जा सकेगा। परीक्षा 28 जुलाई को आयोजित की जाएगी।

UP News : राज्यकर्मियों का डीए आठ फीसदी बढ़ा


UP News : राज्यकर्मियों का डीए आठ फीसदी बढ़ा

लखनऊ : प्रदेश सरकार ने राज्य कर्मचारियों, शिक्षकों को आठ प्रतिशत महंगाई भत्ते की राहत मंजूर की है। इस बढ़ोतरी के साथ राज्यकर्मियों का महंगाई भत्ता मूल वेतन का 80 फीसदी हो गया है। बढ़ा डीए एक जनवरी 2013 से देय होगा। हालांकि 1 जनवरी से 31 मई तक बढ़े डीए की राशि कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि में जमा की जाएगी। नकद भुगतान जून के वेतन से किया जाएगा जो उन्हें जुलाई में मिलेगा। इसी तरह पेंशनरों का भी भत्ता बढ़ाने को मंजूरी दी गई है। वित्त विभाग ने इस संबंध में शासनादेश जारी कर दिया है


Salary of teachers will also increase and approx salary of Primary Teachers will be approx. Rs. 25000/ monthly + Other leave / PF/Gratuity benefits.




Wednesday, May 29, 2013

UPTET and Court Matter


UPTET and Court Matter


Allahabad Highcourt Summer Vacations -


Supreme Court Summer vacation

***************
If TB decision is not full and final regarding 72825 recruitment of Teachers then Candidates have fear delay in their recruitment.

UPTET : BTC Candidate who cleared UPTET exam as well demands appointment as Asst. Teacher


UPTET : BTC Candidate who cleared UPTET exam as well demands appointment as Asst. Teacher


See Judgement -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 30 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27778 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Saket Kumar 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 4 Ors. 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 
The petitioner has come up raising the same plea which has already been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (1) ADJ 651. ��������������������� The said decision was referred to a larger Bench doubting the correctness of the second part of the judgment with regard to the compulsion of teacher eligibility test. 
So far as the first part of the judgment in Prabhakar Singh's case is concerned, the same has followed the decision in the case of Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others (2007) 9 SCC 491 and has held that the process of appointment begins with the advertisement under Rule 14 of the 1981 Rules. In the instant case the petitioner contends that he had already appeared in the examination and was duly qualified even before the notification dated 23.8.2010 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled the automatically appointed as an assistant teacher in view of the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 3.11.2009 in writ petition No. 57704 of 2009. 
I am unable to agree with the submissions in as much as in view of the judgment In Prabhakar Singh's case referred to hereinabove the process of appointment begins with the advertisement for the purpose of appointment under Rule 14 of 1981 Rule. No such advertisement was issued prior to 23.8.2010 against which the petitioner could have applied. His mere completion of the B.T.C. examination and passing it out does not give him an automatic right to seek appointment as an assistant teacher. 
The petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. 
Order Date :- 16.5.2013 
Manish 


Source : Allahabad HC website. For authentic copy kindly contact concerned authority.

UPTET टीईटी में बैठेंगे 10 लाख परीक्षार्थी


UPTET टीईटी में बैठेंगे 10 लाख परीक्षार्थी
इस बार मिलेगा एक घंटा ज्यादा समय

लखनऊ   27-28 जून को होने वाली शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) में 10 लाख परीक्षार्थियों के बैठने का अनुमान है। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद से मिले आंकड़े के मुताबिक 10 लाख अभ्यर्थियों ने विभागीय वेबसाइट पर पंजीकरण कराया है। परीक्षा में इस बार एक घंटे का अतिरिक्त समय दिया जाएगा। पिछली बार परीक्षा डेढ़ घंटे की थी, जो इस बार ढाई घंटे की होगी। सभी जिला मुख्यालयों पर परीक्षा केंद्र बनाए जाएंगे। इस संबंध में परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी ने बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारियों को दिशा-निर्देश भेज दिया है।
टीईटी के लिए आवेदन की अंतिम तिथि 27 मई को समाप्त हो गई। परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी अब आवेदन पत्रों का मिलान कराएगा और पात्रों को परीक्षा में बैठने की अनुमति देगा। प्रवेश पत्र विभागीय वेबसाइट पर अपलोड किए जाएंगे। जिलाधिकारियों की अध्यक्षता में कमेटियां बना दी गई हैं। इनकी देखरेख में ही परीक्षा केंद्र बनाए जाएंगे। राजकीय व सहायता प्राप्त स्कूलों को ही परीक्षा केंद्र बनाया जाएगा। इनके खाली न होने पर विशेष परिस्थितियों में वित्त विहीन स्कूलों को परीक्षा केंद्र बनाया जाएगा

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

UPTET Breaking News : Allahabad Highcourt Triple Bench (TB) Decision Will Come out on 31st May 2013


UPTET Breaking News : Allahabad Highcourt Triple Bench (TB) Decision Will Come out on 31st May 2013



A long awaited decision and a hope of lakhs of UPTET candidate will arrive on 31st May 2013.

Many candidates still confused about their future as there are some other decisions which are awaited e.g. -
1. Age bar old candidates whose age crossed in new advertisement, and Single Bench Allahabad HC favors those candidates whose age are within limit of old advertisement (72825 posts) but age bared in new advt.

2. Candidates who applied earlier and as per HC directions they send  application to SCERT, Lko for new advt. with fee exemption.

3. Base of Selection i.e. Acad. versus TET merit.


Some candidates expected a complete decision for all cases related to their recruitment by the Larger Bench (TB), But some have opinions that TB will send other matters back to DB (Double Bench) as their case is already running their. TB is formed to make its decision TET versus Non TET matter.

Some candidates having fear that summer vacation of court may delay their recruitment if all matters realated to their recruitment will not solved by TB and if further hearing in DB happens.

However , If you see cause list then it looks it includes all writs related to UPTET and final decision may be arrived on 31st May 2013.

See TB Cause List / Judgment Day -

NOTIFICATION JARI HO GAI HAI ORDER 31.05.2013 KO AA RAHA HAI
AT 10.00 A.M.
COURT NO.29
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL
-
For Delivery of Judgement/ Order/Opinion
WRIT - A
1. 12908/2013 SHIV KUMAR SHARMA ANILBHUSHAN
ADARSH BHUSHAN
RAHUL AGRAWAL
ARVIND SRIVASTVA
ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY
Vs. STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & O C.S.C.
-RS. R.B.YADAV
R.A. AKHTER
PRAVEEN SHUKLA
WITH WRIA- 12911/2013 YATINDER KUMAR TIWARI ANIL BHUSHAN
ADARSH BHUSHAN
RAHUL AGRAWAL
Vs. STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & O C.S.C.
-RS. R.B.YADAV
PRAVEEN SHUKLA
WITH WRIA- 12915/2013 PRIT PAL SINGHANIL BHUSHAN
ADARSH BHUSHAN
RAHUL AGRAWAL
SANJAY MISRA
Vs. STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & O C.S.C.
-RS. R.B.YADAV
PRAVEEN SHUKLA
WITH SPLA- 150/2013 NAVIN SRIVASTAVAAND OTHERS ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA
SHASHI NANDAN
ASHEESH MANI TRIPATHI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
C.B.YADAV
BHANU PRATAP SINGH
WITH SPLA- 149/2013 SUJEET SINGH ANDOTHERS NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
SHAILENDRA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
WITH SPLA- 152/2013 RAJEEV KUMAR YADAV SADANAND MISHRA
SEEMANT SINGH
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
SHYAM KRISHNA GUPTA
WITH SPLA- 159/2013 ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS SIDDHARTH KHARE
ASHOK KHARE
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
A.K. YADAV
WITH SPLA- 161/2013 ALOK SINGH AND OTHERS ABHISHEK SRIVASTASVA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
A.K. YADAV
R.A. AKHTAR
WITH SPLA- 205/2013 AMAR NATH YADAVAND OTHERS PANKAJ LAL
INDRA RAJ SINGH
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
MRIGRAJ SINGH
B.P. SINGH
S. NADEEM AHMAD
WITH SPLA- 206/2013 YAJUVENDRA SINGH CHANDDEL AND KSHETRESH CHANDRA SHUKLA
-ANOTHER
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
R.A. AKHTAR
WITH SPLA- 220/2013 AMITESHWARI DUBEY AND OTHERS MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY
Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRY. C.S.C.
- BASIC EDUCATION LOK. AND ORS. A.K. YADAV
R.A. AKHTAR
WITH SPLA- 244/2012 DR. PRASHANT KUMAR DUBEY ALOK MISHRA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
WITH SPLA- 246/2013 PRIYANKA BHASKAR AND OTHERS VIJAY SHANKAR TRIPATHI
VINOD SHANKAR TRIPATHI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
RAM CHANDRA SINGH
WITH SPLA- 248/2013 UMA SHANKER PATEL AND OTHERS NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
R.A. AKHTAR
A.K. YADAV
WITH SPLA- 249/2013 DEVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
MRIGRAJ SINGH
R.A. AKHTA R
WITH SPLA- 261/2013 SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS HEMANT KUMAR RAI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
R.B. PRADHAN
WITH SPLA- 262/2013 SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS HEMANT KUMAR RAI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
WITH SPLA- 264/2013 RAMA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS HEMANT KUMAR RAI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
WITH SPLA- 265/2013 NAGENDRA KUMARYADAV AND OTHER NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
-S
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
R.A. AKHTAR
SANJAY CHATURVEDI
WITH SPLA- 266/2013 HARVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
R.A. AKHTAR
Y.S. BOHAR
WITH SPLA- 268/2013 RAJIV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND OTH NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
-ERS
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
R.A. AKHTAR
B.P. SINGH
WITH SPLA- 307/2013 VINEET KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS JAGDISH PATHAK
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
A.K. YADAV
WITH SPLA- 333/2013 SATENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS R.K. MISHRA
G.K. MISHRA
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
H.K. YADAV
ILLEGIBLE
WITH SPLAD-200/2013 RAJPAL SINGH AND OTHERS MURTUZA ALI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
AYANK MISHRA
R.A. AKHTAR
SHYAM KRISHNA GUPTA
WITH SPLAD-227/2013 PRAVEEN KUMAR IRSHAD ALI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
SHYAM KRISHNA GUPTA
WITH SPLAD-228/2013 MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA AND OTHER VIJAY CHAURASIA
-S
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
WITH SPLAD-302/2013 RAM BABOO SINGH AND OTHERS NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA
NEERAJ TIWARI
Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS C.S.C.
A.K. YADAV


Kindly refer Allahabad HC website/concerned authority for authentic details.