UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Model Schools mein TET Mandatory Kiye Jane Kee Sambhvna Badee

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Model Schools mein TET Mandatory Kiye Jane Kee Sambhvna Badee, LT Grade mein bhee TET ho Sakta Hai Lagu  - 

Model School  Niyuktion ke Leeye TET Jaruree Nahin ye Single Bench Ne Kaha thaa, See order - http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/2015/05/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news-18-april-2015.html

Aur Neeche Dee gayee Appeal mein Court ne Is Order ko Badle jane aur afresh jaree karne ke aadesh de deey hain

• टेट की अनिवार्यता मॉडल स्कूल में किये जाने की ख़ारिज  kee thee Single Bench ne -

Reson thaa - Model Schools kee Vacancies CBSE Board ke hain

Lekin CJ kee Bench Ne Is Order ko Badalne ko Keh Deeyaa Hai , See Order :- >>>



For any error in reading the same, please brought to  our notice so that we will correct, if any

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 249 of 2015

Appellant :- Jitendra Singh Rajpoot
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.2015/0895,H.N. Pandey,R.A. Akhtar

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
An order of dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has given rise to the present special appeal. The appellant, who is the original petitioner, sought to challenge an advertisement issued on 17 March 2015 for appointment of trained graduate teachers in State Model Schools in Uttar Pradesh. The grievance of the appellant is that though NCTE has made it mandatory by a notification dated 23 August 2010 to hold a TET qualification, the State has not followed the requirement. The learned Single Judge merely recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and of the Standing Counsel and dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
"According to the learned counsel for the petitioner after notification of 23.8.2010 and thereafter Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which also prescribes TET as necessary qualification and , therefore the institutions within the State cannot appoint the teachers who do not have TET for teaching classes 1 to 5 and 6 to 8.
Learned Standing Counsel upon instruction submits that TET requirement is not applicable to the Model School as the Model School is affiliated to the CBSC and , therefore, the TET is not required.
In view of the aforesaid , the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed."
Ex facie, there has been no consideration by the learned Single Judge on the merits or tenability of the submission of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB)], in support of the following propositions:
"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)."
In our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the submissions and could not have dismissed the writ petition merely on the basis of submissions of the learned Standing Counsel without considering the tenability of the rival contentions. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18 April 2015.�
Writ A� No.21167 of 2015 is, accordingly, restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. It would be open to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to apply before the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the writ petition.
The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2015
VMA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)

(M.K. Gupta, J.)
*******************************

Here Delhi High Court said TET is mandatory for TGT Teaachers and candidates lost his/her job due to this fact -

 http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2015/04/sarkari-naukri-tgt-teachrs-ke-liye-tet.html

No one can be appointed as a teacher in a school after the passing of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short „RTE Act,  2009), read  with the  notification  of  National  Council  for  Teacher Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.

Yahan Par Yachee Keh Raha Hai ki Games ke Rule Beech Mein nahin Badalte, RTE Act Aane Se Pehle ki Bhrtee Hai Ye Tab TET Ki Badhyate Nahin Thee.
 Rules of the games cannot be changed mid way because  the  advertisement  did  not  prescribe  the  requirement  of  CTET qualification, in my opinion, this argument if accepted ,
the same will amount to Court becoming a party to gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act , 2009






*************

see order -> http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2015/04/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news-tgt-yachee-ne.html

It  was  also    stated  that  as  per  the Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the Teacher   Eligibility   Test   (in   short   ‘TET’)   which   is
conducted   by   the appropriate  Government  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed  in  that
regard  and  if  the  School  had  appointed  a  teacher,  who  did  not  qualify  the TET, then such an appointment was invalid. 
5.       When   the   petitioner   failed   to   receive   any   response   from   the respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C)  3025/2012  praying  inter  alia  that  the  respondent  No.1/School  be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).

Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/2015/04/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news-tgt-yachee-ne.html#ixzz3Zj6ztCXe

******************







 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
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
 

See Case Details of AIIMS in HighCourt of Delhi about NOT Cancelling Exam (Merely on apprehensions)

See Case Details of AIIMS in HighCourt of Delhi about NOT Cancelling Exam (Merely on apprehensions) 

 हाईकोर्ट -  सिर्फ डर की वजह से की बड़े पैमाने पर गड़बड़ी हुई है  से / कुछ आरोपों के कारण पूरी परीक्षा रद करना ठीक नहीं

N  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
+  W.P.(C) 638/2012 and CM 1375/2012
Decided on: 10th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF DR. PRASHANT DASS AND ORS.     ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Gulabani, Advocate
versus
UOI AND ORS.      ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asit Tiwari, Advocate for R-1/UOI. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Advocate with Mr. Sumit
Babbar and Mr. Sahil Singh Chauhan, Advocates for  R-2/AIIMS.



CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI



HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by five petitioners praying inter alia for quashing of the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Exxamination-2012 (in short ‘the ÁIPGMEE-2012), held simultaneously in 156 centres all 
over the country on 08.01.2012. The petitioners have also sought directions to respondent No.2/AIIMS to evolve a mechanism to prevent recurrence of such an incident of cheating in the entrance examination, which occurred in a Centre at Noida, as noted in the press clippings.
2. On  31.01.2012, counsel for respondent No.2/AIIMS had stated on instructions that a letter dated 24.01.2012 had been addressed by the Sub-Dean (Examination), AIIMS to the Director General, Directorate General of health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of

India, stating  inter alia that the incident of cheating in respect of the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2012 held on 08.01.2012 was found to have occurred only at one examination centre situated at Noida and that the Centre Supervisor at  the said  centre had submitted a comprehensive report, which was in turn forwarded for investigation to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police.  The report of the investigation was awaited. In the report dated 10.01.2012 prepared by the Centre Supervisor at the Noida Examination Centre, a mention was made of three candidates from whose possession, some electronic gadgets were recovered by the police after investigation. Though  on the last date,  it was stated by the counsel for  respondent No.2/AIIMS that apart from the aforesaid stray incident that took place only in one centre at Noida and the examinations in all the remaining 155 examination centres were held peacefully and without any hindrance, respondent No.2/AIIMS was directed to file a brief affidavit in that regard.




3. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2/AIIMS on 08.02.2012, wherein it is stated that the entrance examination in all the centres all over the country had  commenced at 10 AM on 08.01.2012 and
that the examination went on smoothly at all centres except at  the  Noida centre situated at Vishwa Bharti Public School, Arun Vihar, Sector-28.  When the examination was in progress at the aforesaid centre, at about 10:20 AM, out of the two invigilators in the Noida centre, one invigilator had reported


that one candidate possessed a mobile phone, which was subsequently confiscated and handed over to the Centre Supervisor, who in turn informed the AIIMS examination control room about the incident.  At 11:30 AM on the same date, four officers from the Crime Branch, Delhi Police came to AIIMS with the scanned copy of the questions so as to verify  as to whether the questions in the scanned document matched with the original booklet of AIPGMEE-2012.  Upon scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that 2-3
pages of the question booklet appeared to have been scanned, which also contained the images of a ball pen that is supplied by AIIMS for use by the candidates appearing in the said examination.   Later on, it was revealed that the AIIMS representative, who was supervising the Noida Centre,  had deposited a seizure report of the mobile phone that had been seized from a candidate and the said phone was in turn handed over to the Crime branch officials, who  had  visited the centre later  on  and had apprehended the
candidate found to be cheating in the examination.   It is further averred in the affidavit that the Crime Branch, Delhi Police has interrogated the said candidate and two other candidates and some electronic gadgets were recovered    by the Crime Branch from all the three candidates. It is stated that the matter continues to remain under investigation of the Crime Branch, Delhi Police.




4. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit filed by respondent No.3/AIIMS, it is apparent that the incident of cheating is found to have occurred on 8.1.2012 only at one examination centre and that too in a centre which  was  situated at Noida, where  a  mobile phone  is stated to have been recovered from one candidate and some electronic gadgets were recovered from two candidates.  Apart from the aforesaid incident, the AIPGMEE-2012  appears to have been conducted peacefully all over the remaining 155 examination centers.  A total number of 71,968 candidates are stated to have applied for  sitting in  the aforesaid examination and 69,069 candidates had actually appeared in the said examination.  It is also pertinent to note that the examination centre of none of the five petitioners herein was situated at Noida.  Rather,  upon inquiry, the Court is informed that  the centre from where petitioner No.1  had sat for taking his examination was located  at Rajouri Garden, that of petitioner No.2 was at JNU Centre, that of petitioner No.3 was at Vivek Vihar, that of petitioner No.4 was at Tagore Garden and that of petitioner No.5 was near Karkardooma Courts. 




5. Merely  an  apprehension expressed by the petitioners that they would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of a scam, which scam is  under  investigation by the Crime Branch,  Delhi Police, cannot be considered as sufficient  ground for quashing  the AIPGMEE-2012 held on 08.01.2012 for 69,069 candidates all over the country. When the magnitude of the aforesaid incident is still unknown and the investigations are on, the present petition can only be termed as  one based on surmises and conjectures.  As a result, the present petition is  dismissed along with the pending application, as being premature and without any basis.



(HIMA  KOHLI)
JUDGE

FEBRUARY  10, 201

Info Source : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/HK/judgement/18-02-2012/HK10022012CW6382012.pdf
*************************

कुछ आरोपों के कारण पूरी परीक्षा रद करना ठीक नहीं

(AIIMS  : Due to some minor allegations/charges, It is not good to cancel entire Medical Examination)