UPTET 2014 : VIOLATION OF NCTE GUIDELINES

UPTET 2014 : VIOLATION OF NCTE GUIDELINES

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5317 of 2014

Petitioner :- Mohd. Amil
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead Chairman, N.C.T.E, New Delhi as as respondent no. 4 in the array of parties forthwith.� He shall also serve a copy of the writ petition upon Shri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, sought quashing of the paragraphs no. 2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the G.O. dated 17.4.2013 issued by the State Government with regard to the conduct of U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2013 for Urdu language as it does not contain the questions in regard to second language and mathematics and environmental studies and is in violation of N.C.T.E. Guidelines dated 11.2011.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.
The matter requires consideration.
All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.
List after four weeks.
When the case is next listed the name of Shri R.A. Akhtar be shown in the cause list as counsel� for the respondent.
Order Date :- 12.2.2014
o.k.
******************
OTHER UPTET 2014 related cases :

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10612 of 2014

Petitioner :- Priyanka Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.S. Baghel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to correct the photograph of the petitioner in the Certificate issued to the petitioner of U.P.T.E.T., 2013 for 'Uchcha Prathmik (Bhasha)'.
Leanred Standing Counsel shall produce original record including E-Application and photograph which may have been attached thereto as well as any photograph available with regard to the the petitioner's application and the certificate.
Put up on 25.2.2014.� �
Order Date :- 19.2.2014
Asha 
**********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14260 of 2014

Petitioner :- Bilal Ahmad And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Y.S. Bohra

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
I have heard Sri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.S.Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.�
The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the Adeeb course from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh as equivalent to High School� and further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in the Primary School on the basis of qualification for participating in U.P.T.E.T., 2013.
According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 had passed Adeeb Examination in 1987 and also Molim-E-Urdu in 1996 and petitioner no.2 had passed Adeeb Examination in 1985 and also Molim-E-Urdu in 1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of the Lucknow bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 7102 (M/S) of 2013 Mohd. Naseem Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 16.12.2013 alongwith other connected matters wherein this Court has held that the courses of Adeeb, Fazil, Maulvi and Munsi shall be taken as equivalent to High School. This Court has held as under:-
"Writ petitions are allowed.
The opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioners to participate in the ongoing counselling for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher ( Urdu) being carried out by the State as per the advertisement mentioned in the year 2013 immediately. Courses of Adeeb, Fazil, Maulvi and Munsi as detailed aforesaid shall be taken as equivalent to High School."

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that this legal position has� already been settled in the case of Mohd.Naseem.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.4,� the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for being� allowed to appear in the counseling for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Primary School within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
It is made clear that respondent will be at liberty to� examine the veracity and genuineness of the documents/certificates filed by the petitioner.�
Order Date :- 6.3.2014
Asha  

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

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3682 of 2014

Petitioner :- Suman Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking� correction in the Caste Category of� petitioner by mentioning O.B.C. in pace of General in Upper Primary� Language Examination-UPTET-2013� and placed the petitioner in merit list of OBC Candidates.
According to the petitioner, she was already in possession� of the caste certificate of OBC, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
I have heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai holding brief of Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel with a direction to the respondent no.2, Secretary of Examinations Controller Authority (Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari) Allenganj, Allahabad, U.P. to consider the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by his office.
Order Date :- 21.1.2014
N Tiwari 
 ****************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4964 of 2014

Petitioner :- Faisal Naseem And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.K. Yadav

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award them two marks in respect of multiple choice questions no. 18 and 26 of question book let no. 957839 (petitioner no.1) and question book let no. 957783 (petitioner no.2) of 'C' Series of UP TET 2013 (Primary Language) Examination and thereafter declare petitioners qualified in U.P. T.E.T. 2013 (Primary language).
Heard Shri B.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel representing respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri A.K.Yadav, learned counsel representing respondents no. 3.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no. 2-The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allanganj, Allahabad that if the petitioners prefer a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within 10 days from today before the respondent no. 2 raising all their grievances which they have raised in this writ petition, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a further period of one month.
Order Date :- 7.2.2014
N Tiwari 
*******************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4956 of 2014

Petitioner :- Majid Ali Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.K. Yadav

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award him two marks in respect of multiple choice questions no. 6 and 19 of question book let no. 957872 of "D" Series of UP TET 2013 (Primary Language) Examination and thereafter declare his result of U.P. T.E.T. 2013 (Primary language).
I have heard Shri B.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel representing respondents no. 3.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no. 2-The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allanganj, Allahabad that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within 10 days from today before the respondent no. 2 raising all his grievances which he has raised in this writ petition, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a further period of one month.
Order Date :- 7.2.2014
N Tiwari   
 ***********************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16005 of 2014

Petitioner :- Rakesh Babu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Nath Maury,B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Raj Nath Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to provide him the marksheet of U.P.T.E.T.-2013.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2, the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allenganj Allahabad to provide the result of the U.P.T.E.T.-2013 (Primary Level) to the petitioner� within a period of� two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
Order Date :- 13.3.2014
Asha  
***********************
 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17041 of 2014

Petitioner :- Rita Rani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to evaluate the O.M.R. Sheet of petitioner appeared in U.P.T.E.T., 2013-14� Primary Level treating her Language Attempted option Sanskrit.
According to the petitioner, in her application form she has filled Sanskrit as subject. According to her,� in O.M.R. Sheet she has not filled Language Attempted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in writ petition� no.12698 of 2014, Shamasul Eslam vs. State of U.P. and others where the petitioner had failed to� mention Question Booklet Number in the O.M.R.Sheet. Relying upon� a decision of Division Bench� of this Court in the case of� Archana Rastogi (Km.) V. State of U.P. and Others reported in [2012 (3) ADJ 219 (DB)]� the Court had directed to the respondent to reconsider the matter of the petitioner in the light of the documents on record.
In my opinion, the said judgments have no application to the facts of the case inasmuch as� in O.M.R. Sheet the petitioner has failed to fill up 'Language Attempted' column itself. Therefore, no direction can be given to re-evaluate O.M.R. sheet of the petitioner treating the same for the subject Language Attempted Sanskrit.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.3.2014
Asha 
*******************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10349 of 2014

Petitioner :- Musharraf Raza Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Nath Maurya,B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Raj Nath Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents to award 3 marks to the petitioner in respect of� multiple choice questions No. 2, 24 and 29 of Question Booklet No. 757874 of "B" Series of U.P. TET 2013 (Primary Language) and to declare petitioner qualified in U.P. T.E.T., 2013 (Primary Language).
All the respondents shall counter affidavit within three weeks. List thereafter.
Connect this writ petition with Writ Petition No. 10347 of 2014 (Jamshed Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another).
Order Date :- 18.2.2014
Arun K. Singh