UPTET : टीईटी मुक्त समायोजन को एक और झटका

UPTET : टीईटी मुक्त समायोजन को एक और झटका

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment  /SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  / SARKARI NAUKRI News

Shiksha Mitra, Shiksha Mitra News Samayojan, Shiksha Mitra Counslling Primary Teacher Samayojan News  ,  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,  ,   SARKARI NAUKRI
 

Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl

http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#IXXWDvIOE

इलाहाबाद संजोग मिश्र प्रदेशभर के 1.72 लाख शिक्षामित्रों के बगैर टीईटी पक्की नौकरी की राह आसान नहीं दिख रही है। उत्तराखंड हाईकोर्ट के हालिया फैसले ने उत्तर प्रदेश में टीईटी मुक्त समायोजन पर सवाल खड़े कर दिए हैं। उत्तराखंड के शिक्षामित्रों की सेवा शर्तें उत्तर प्रदेश के समान है क्योंकि 1999 में जब इनकी नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया शुरू हुई, उस वक्त उत्तराखंड बना नहीं था।

उत्तराखंड सरकार ने इसी साल चार मार्च को बगैर टीईटी समायोजन का आदेश जारी किया तो यह मामला उत्तराखंड हाईकोर्ट पहुंच गया। सुनवाई के बाद हाईकोर्ट ने गत 15 जुलाई को पारित फैसले में कहा कि टीईटी से छूट केंद्र सरकार ही अधिसूचना के जरिए दे सकती है। शिक्षामित्रों को टीईटी से छूट देने के उत्तराखंड सरकार के निर्णय को खारिज करते हुए हाईकोर्ट ने यह भी कहा कि शिक्षामित्रों को शिक्षक नहीं माना जा सकता। उन्हें कभी वेतन का भुगतान नहीं किया गया।

शिक्षामित्रों को उनकी सेवाओं के लिए जो मिलता रहा, वो मानदेय है। गौरतलब है कि टीईटी से छूट दिए जाने का विवाद इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में विचाराधीन है जबकि 53 हजार से अधिक शिक्षामित्रों को नियुक्ति पत्र भी बांटे जा चुके हैं। कैट के फैसले ने बढ़ाई उम्मीदें टीईटी मुक्त समायोजन पर अड़े यूपी के शिक्षामित्रों की उम्मीदों को पिछले दिनों सेंट्रल एडमिनिस्ट्रेटिव ट्रिब्युनल (कैट) के फैसले ने बढ़ा दिया है। गत नौ जुलाई के फैसले में कैट ने संविदा के आधार पर रिसोर्स टीचर्स की नियुक्ति के लिए टीईटी की अनिवार्यता में रियायत दी थी।

नजीर नहीं बन सकता यह फैसला उत्तराखंड हाईकोर्ट का फैसला उत्तर प्रदेश के शिक्षामित्रों के टीईटी मुक्त समायोजन के खिलाफ इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में लंबित याचिकाओं के लिए नजीर नहीं बन सकता, बहस के दौरान संदर्भ बिन्दु हो सकता है। एनसीटीई कर चुका है इनकार शिक्षक भर्ती के मानक तय करने वाली राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) यूपी के शिक्षामित्रों को टीईटी से छूट दिए जाने से पहले ही इनकार कर चुकी है। आरटीआई के जवाब में एनसीटीई ने ऐसी कोई छूट नहीं दिए जाने की बात कही है

News Sabhaar : Live Hndustan / Hndustan Epaper (9/10.08.14) 09-08-14 11:46 PM

SHIKSHA MITRA Latest News In Hindi

  SHIKSHA MITRA news | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | Shiksha Mitra Breaking News | Shiksha Mitra Fastest News | Shiksha Mitra Result 2014 | Shiksha Mitra News Hindi | Shiksha Mitra cutoff/counceling Niyukti Patra / Appointment Letter |

UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT NE KYA DIYA THAA FESLA 
(EK VYAKTI DWARA UPLABDHA KARAI GAYEE JANAKAREE KE ADHAAR PAR,
PRAMANAIK COPY  KE LIYE UTTRAKHAND HC SE SAMPARK KAREN, YA FR UK KI WEBSITE KA AVLOKAN KAREN)

N THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 333 of 2014 Praveen Kumari & others ... Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 303 of 2014 Smt. Gita Bhatt & others ... Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 509 of 2014 Geeta Pandey ... Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tiwari and Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocates, present for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel, present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Piyus Garg, Advocate, present for the interveners/respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners before this Court underwent a training known as “Basic Teachers Certificate” ( hereinafter referred to as “BTC” ), which is inter alia a necessary qualification for appointment to the post of teacher in Elementary School. 2. What is under challenged by the petitioners is a Government Order dated 04.03.2014 whereby the Government has exempted the mandatory qualification known as “Teacher Eligibility Test” ( hereinafter referred to as “TET” ) for a different set of B.T.C. qualified candidates. 3. In short, before this Court, there ar e two sets of B.T.C. trained teachers (a) the petitioners and (b) the private respondents/intervener s. The difference between them is that the present petitioners have passed an open 2 competition and than become e ligible for admission to the B.T.C. course, which would then enable them to clear the mandatory qualification of T. E.T. The private respondents are the ones who did not compete for any examination for undergoing this course, but this was a benefit granted to them by the Government for their past services as “ Shiksha Mitra” , as they were imparting education in primary school children in remote areas of the State. They have, however, been exempted from T.E.T. 4. At this juncture, it mu st be noted here that the writ petition (WPSS No. 674 of 2009) in which petitioners had challenged the selection of the present respondents to undergo the said test i.e. B.T.C. as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but the writ petition was dismissed. 5. This Court has to examine as to whether the exemption from T.E.T. has been rightly granted or not. A brief background of the present case, therefore, be in order. 6. After the Right to Ed ucation Act being inserting in the Constitution of India and become Fundamental Right under Article 21 (A) of the Constitution of India, a detailed Legislation was passed by the Parliament known as “Right of Children to Free Compulsory Education Act, 2009” ( hereinafter referred to as “Education Act” ). There were various provisions of the Act, but the focus of the Parliament was that Elementary Education i.e. education from Class I to Class VIII shou ld not only be compulsory but also a Fundamental Right of a child and that such education should be a meanin gful education. Meaning 3 thereby, the teacher who impa rt such education must be properly educated and trained. 7. Rule 23 of the Education Act authorizes the Central Government to notify an academic authority for the purpose of, inter alia, laying down the eligibility of such teachers. The qualification and the training are necessary for the teachers who impart such Elementary education. Consequently, a notification came, by which the National Council for Teachers Education ( in short “NCTE” ) to prescribed mandatory qualifications for Elementary School teachers in the country. This was the notification dated 23.08.2010, inter alia, a person must have a “training” to teach Elementary School children. In the State of Uttarakhand such training is known as Basic Training Certificate ( in short “B.T.C.” ), which is a two years course undertaken by Education Authorities. Apart from this a trained teacher (it is now BT C teacher) must qualify TET examination only than he would become qualify for appointment of teacher in Elementary school. 8. The Government vide notification dated 04.03.2014 has exempted this qu alification i.e. TET for the second set of teachers which are respondents/interveners before this Court. In order to clarify it and the cost of the repetition it must be stated that the second set of teachers, which are referred here, are the teachers who were earlier working as a Shiksha Mitra and given a concession and underwent a B.T.C. course and it is in their case that this exemption has been granted. It is this exemption which is presently being challenged by the first set of teachers who have competed their course i. e. B.T.C. and thereafter as 4 this course has not been exempted in their case, they are alleging violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, amongst other Articles. 9. Though the prayer in most of these writ petitions have not been very happily drafted, in the first set of teachers i.e. the petitioners seek the same benefit i.e. exemption of TET which is given to the respondents in their cases as well. What is presen tly being seen by this Court as to whether exemption, which has been granted to the respondents, is a valid exempt ion or not, because the fate of the petitioners would depend upon this exemption and the findings therein. 10. If the entire scheme of the Right to Education Act and the subsequent notification issued by the NCTE dated 23.08.2010 are examined in detail, it has nowh ere been the intention either of the Parliament or the Authoritie s constituted therein, including NCTE to dispense with the TET qualifications which is mandatory in every given case. In fact on an earlier round of litigation there was a principle challenge to this examination i.e. TET, which was rejected by this Court in Bhuwan Chandra & others Vs State of Uttarakhand & others (decide on 13.12.2012). 11. Thereafter in the earlie r round of litigation (in WPSS No. 1506 of 2012 deci ded on 13.12.2012), the second set of teachers, who are presently before this Court are respondents had challenged the order dated 14.06.2011 whereby such an exemption (i.e. exemption for appearing in TET) was grante d to such teachers who have done their BTC through open comp etition. In the said writ petition, this Court rejected the claim of the petitioners and held as under:- 5 “This Court is also of the view that the Government should not have passed the order dated 29.8.2012 for the reason that even a day prio r to it, the Government of Uttarakhand had framed Ru les known as Uttarakhand Government Primary School Teacher Service Rules, 2012, where the Government had itse lf prescribed the mandatory conditions for appointment of primary school teacher which included a person to have qual ified TET. Therefore, Orders 14.6.2011 and 29.8.2012 are hereby quashed. Consequently the writ petition No. 1528 of 2012 succeeds as it questions the very exemption granted by the respondents on 14.6.2011 and 29.8.2012 to a set of BTC trained teachers.” 12. Now the exemption which was earlier granted to the petitioners earlier was held to be wrong by this Court is now being granted to the second set of teachers, which is again under challenge before this Court. 13. Mr. Subash Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel is appearing for the second set of teachers/respondents rely upon condition Nos. 4 and 5 of the notification dated 23.08. 2010, which reads as under:- “ 4. Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification:- The following categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VI II prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above: (a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3 rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Mini mum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed. qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 – month special programme on elementary education. (b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has comp leted a 6-month Special 6 Basic Teacher Course (Speci al BTC) approved by the NCTE. (c) A teacher appointed before the 3 rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules. 5. Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in certain cases:- Where an appropriate Government, or local authority or a school has issued an adve rtisement to initiate the process of appointment of t eachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).” 14. A bare perusal of th e aforesaid notification it reveals that by the notificatio n referred above concession has been given to the respondents that the mandatory condition of TET which was referred in the preceding paragraphs of the notification are not exempted. What is only exempted is B.T.C. when the State Government placed before the Central Government its difficulty that there is not enough courses of BTC available in the State. Therefore, for a limited peri od exemption for undergoing such courses may be granted. The above provisions do not contemplate an exemption from appearing or qualify TET. That simply does not exist. 15. Even if it is presum ed for the sake of argument that TET is not a requiremen t in cases where the process for initiation of appointment of elementary school teachers has been made, even then this exemption cannot be granted to the petitioners. Merely because the process for admission to BTC examination had been initiated would not mean that the process for appointment of teachers had already been initiated. The two are different. Moreover, a 7 ‘ Shiksha Mitra ’ cannot be said to be in service. He is simply working as a part time arrang ement on an honorarium. 16. That being so, this Court wholly fails to understand as to why before granting of exemption on 04.03.2014, the State Government seek clarification from the NCTE that there are certain set of teachers whom they called as Shiksha Mitra who are already in service as teacher. Therefore, they should be granted such exemption. 17. The very question put by the State Government to NCTE was a wrong question. Shiksha Mitra cannot be treated in service as a teache r. They were never teachers anywhere. They were never paid any salary, which was being paid to them, was honora rium. In fact in the very initial scheme by which Shiksha Mitra was appointed which is an order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Government of Uttarakhand, wh ich is placed on record as annexure “X”. The Government has stated that Shiksha Mitra scheme is only for a short-term arrangement and such persons who are appointed as Shiksha Mitra cannot be said that they will be regularized as teachers. 18. That being the scheme of things, the exemption which is being sought to be given by the correspondence of letters between the State authorities and the NCTE authorities is totally wrong and in violation of law. It must be clearly stated that it is not given to the State Government to give such exemptions. 8 19. As already referred above such exemption can only be given on two cont ingency (a) where the State Government for some reasons is not able to give the minimum qualification of BTC and secondly such exemption can be granted if a process of appointment of teachers had already been take n prior to notification dated 23.08.2010. A process for appo intment of teachers did not proceed prior to 23.08.2010. Therefore, under no stretch of evidence no exemption can be granted. An exemption can only be given by the Central Government vide a notification. This cannot be given by correspondence of letters from one authority to another as has been done in the present case. Therefore, the exemption is wrong. The writ petitions are succeed. The order dated 04.03.2014 by which the exemption was grante d to the respondents, is hereby quashed. 20. Having said this, it is made clear that respondents who are presently working as Shiksha Mitra shall continue to work as Shiksha Mitra, and will be given a chance to qualify the TET and if they qualify only then they shall be considered for perm anent appointment as teacher. This Court has also been info rmed that since its inception TET examination is not be ing held by the State Government even once in a year. TET examination preferably must be held at least twice a year. 20. In view thereof, it is hereby directed to the State Government that for the next year, at least, they shall hold TET examination at least once in every six months, as this itself would solve the problem of unfilled vacancies to some extent. 9 21. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to inform about this order to the Director, Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand for onwards compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 15.07.2014 ASWAL