Join Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test UPTET News: LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP

Showing posts with label LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP. Show all posts

Friday, July 8, 2016

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए दो अलग-अलग मानक Aided LT Grade Teacher Recruitment Vs Govt LT Grade Teacher Recruitment

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -

शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए दो अलग-अलग मानक
Aided LT Grade Teacher Recruitment Vs Govt LT Grade Teacher Recruitment

अमर उजाला ब्यूरो, इलाहाबाद
Updated 01:01 गुरूवार, 7 जुलाई 2016
प्रदेश के राजकीय इंटर कॉलेजों (जीआईसी) एवं अशासकीय माध्यमिक विद्यालयों में खाली प्रशिक्षित स्नातक शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए माध्यमिक शिक्षा विभाग दो अलग-अलग मानक अपना रहा है। जीआईसी में शिक्षकों का चयन सीधी भर्ती के जरिए होता है, जबकि सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक विद्यालयों में शिक्षकों का भर्ती चयन लिखित परीक्षा, साक्षात्कार के साथ शैक्षिक अंकों को भी शामिल करके किया जाता है। एक ही पद के लिए दो अलग-अलग भर्ती प्रक्रिया अपनाए जाने से बीएड बेरोजगारों में नाराजगी है। अभ्यर्थी इसके खिलाफ कोर्ट जाने की बात कर रहे हैं। इन दोनों पदों के लिए शासन की ओर से एक ही शैक्षिक अर्हता निर्धारित है। सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक विद्यालयों में इन दिनों टीजीटी-पीजीटी के पदों पर भर्ती के लिए आवेदन की प्रक्रिया चल रही है। इन पदों केलिए चयन बोर्ड लिखित परीक्षा, शैक्षिक अंक के वेटेज के साथ साक्षात्कार के आधार पर चयन करती है।
प्रदेश के माध्यमिक शिक्षा विभाग की ओर से राजकीय इंटर कॉलेजों (बालक, बालिका) में प्रशिक्षित स्नातक श्रेणी (एलटी ग्रेड) पद पर इन दिनों भर्ती प्रक्रिया लंबित चल रही है। इनके लिए शैक्षिक योग्यता संबंधित विषय में स्नातक के साथ बीएड रखा गया था। प्रदेश के सभी मंडलों के संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशकों की ओर से जीआईसी के लिए शैक्षिक मेरिट के आधार पर भर्ती की गई। इस भर्ती में मेरिट में हेराफेरी के कारण कई मंडलों में शिक्षकों ने चयन होने के बाद भी पद पर ज्वाइन नहीं किया। इस प्रकार के मामले पूरे प्रदेश में आ रहे हैं, इलाहाबाद एवं लखनऊ मंडल में सबसे अधिक गड़बड़ी सामने आई है।
बीएड बेरोजगारों का कहना है कि प्रदेश के सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक विद्यालयों में शिक्षकों की भर्ती प्रदेश सरकार की ओर लिखित परीक्षा, साक्षात्कार एवं शैक्षिक अंकों के वेटेज को जोड़कर की जाती है। इसके विपरीत राजकीय इंटर कॉलेजों में शिक्षकों का चयन मात्र शैक्षिक अंकों की मेरिट के आधार पर किया जा रहा है। राजकीय इंटर कॉलेज एवं सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक शिक्षकों का पदनाम एक होने, शैक्षिक अर्हता एक होने के बाद चयन का मानक अलग-अलग रखा गया है। बीएड बेरोजगारों का कहना है कि जीआईसी में नियुक्त होने वाले शिक्षक पदोन्नति के जरिए शिक्षा विभाग में अधिकारी के पद तक पहुंच जाते हैं, जबकि सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक विद्यालयों में नियुक्त होने वाला शिक्षक उसी पद से रिटायर हो जाता है।

Basic Shiksha UP News, LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP, Aided School Teacher Recruitment,

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
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | 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

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Theek 21 Saal Ki Umra Mein LT Grade Teacher ki Nokri, Court Pahuncha Vivaad , Court ne permit kiyaa -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Theek 21 Saal Ki Umra Mein LT Grade Teacher ki Nokri, Court Pahuncha Vivaad , Court ne permit kiyaa -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25379 of 2015

Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- L.K. Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
The petitioner is B.Sc., B.Ed. and belongs to Other Backward Class category. The petitioner qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) in July 2013 in pursuance to an advertisement dated 27 September 2014 published by second respondent, Joint Director of Education, Allahabad. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the Government Inter College. She was issued counseling letter on 17 April 2015 calling her for counseling, petitioner appeared in the counseling on 23 April 2015 along with original certificates. The date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as second July 1993.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an apprehension that the first and second respondent would not consider the claim of the petitioner as a stand has been taken, though verbally, that the petitioner would complete 21 years on 2 July 2014.
I have perused the advertisement with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
Clause 3 of the advertisement, provides that a person should be 21 years on 1 July 2014, accordingly, the petitioner would complete 21 years on 1 July 2014 and not on 2 July 2014 as is being alleged by the respondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is not disputed that the petitioner's date of birth is 2 July 1993 and the eligibility as per the advertisement requires that the incumbent must have completed 21 years as on 1 July 2014, the petitioner would complete 21 years on 1st of July 2014, accordingly, she is eligible to be considered for appointment.
In such circumstances, it is provided that the respondents would treat the petitioner 21 years of age on 1 July 2014 and consider her case for appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in the counseling as held on 23 April 2014.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
No costs.
Order Date :- 4.5.2015
S.Prakash

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

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Theek 21 Saal Ki Umra Mein LT Grade Teacher ki Nokri, Court Pahuncha Vivaad -

Monday, April 27, 2015

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News FAIZABAD LT GRADE REVISEF CUTOFF -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News FAIZABAD LT GRADE REVISEF CUTOFF -

UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS

29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment, 29334 junior teacher vacancy in up latest news, Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP, UPTET, SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS

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

Friday, April 17, 2015

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Alag Alag Univ Ke Marks ki LT Grade Bhtrtee Ke Vedhta ko Chunotee Dene Valee Writ Kharij -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Alag Alag Univ Ke Marks ki LT Grade Bhtrtee Ke Vedhta ko Chunotee Dene Valee Writ Kharij -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court AFR

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58787 of 2014

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57025 of 2014

Petitioner :- Lalita Singh & 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

An advertisement has been issued on 28 September 2014 by the Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur for the post of L.T. Grade Teachers and Trained Graduate Teachers in different subjects.
The petitioners of Writ -C No. 58787 of 2014 belong respectively to the OBC category and General Category. The first and the second petitioners of Writ - C No. 57025 of 2014 belong to General Category whereas the third and the fourth petitioners belong to OBC Category. All the petitioners have applied in pursuance of the advertisement. They now seek to question the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Rule 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 19831 on the basis of which the selection has been initiated. Rule 15 provides for the procedure for recruitment. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has to scrutinize the applications and to cause the list of candidates to be prepared on the basis of quality points as specified in Appendix 'D'. Thereafter the list is to be placed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee prepares a subjectwise list of selected candidates in order of merit as disclosed by the quality points.
The real bone of contention is in regard to Appendix 'D' which provides as follows:
"MANUAL OF RULES & REG. OF STATE OF UP & UTTARANCHAL
APPENDIX 'D'
[See Rule 15(2)]
Quality points for selection by direct recruitment
Name of Examination Quality Points
1. High School The percentage of marks
10
2. Intermediate The percentage of marks x 2
10
3. Graduate Degree The percentage of marks x 4
10
B. Others
4. Training Ist Division II Division III Division
(a) Theory 12 6 3
(b) Practical 12 6 3"

Under Appendix 'D', a method has been provided for the computation of quality points. For the High School Examination, the quality points are computed as a percentage of marks obtained, divided by ten. A similar computation is provided for the Intermediate (the percentage of marks multiplied by 0.2) and for the Graduate Degree (the percentage of marks multiplied by 0.4). In other words, the marks which are ascribed for a Graduate Degree are higher than for the Intermediate and the marks which are ascribed for Intermediate are higher than for the High School. This is perfectly rational since the marks obtained in the Graduate Degree would carry a greater weight than for the Intermediate and similarly those for the Intermediate would have a greater weight than the High School. Similarly a weight is ascribed to the marks obtained in the theory and practical examinations during the course of the training.
The submission which has been urged is two fold. Firstly, it has been submitted that the computation of quality points excludes all other aspects in regard to the personality of an Assistant Teacher which must be borne in mind and no interview has been provided where these considerations can be assessed. Secondly, it has been submitted that there is no method to equate the value of marks obtained at the examination held by different examining bodies.
While dealing with these submissions, it must be noted that the positions which are required to be filled in are entry level positions of Assistant Teachers in Government Inter Colleges.
The Rule provides an objective and transparent method for the computation of quality points. The test in determining the constitutional validity of the Rules is not whether a better method is available or should be implemented because this is a matter for the expert judgement of the rule making authority. The issue is whether the Rule suffers from arbitrariness such as by bringing into consideration extraneous circumstances. There is no such flaw that would result in the rule being declared arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Whether an interview should be held for an entry level position of an Assistant Teacher is a matter of policy for the State Government to decide. In fact, if an interview were to be held, conceivably that may also not be free from bias or subjectivity which is an important consideration to be borne in mind when a recruitment is to be made for the post of an Assistant Teacher in a Government Inter College. Similarly, insofar as the second submission is concerned, there is no compulsion on the State to necessarily hold a common entrance test or written examination for the purpose of recruitment. Again whether a written examination would better fulfill the object of the process is a matter which lies in the policy discretion of the State. The High Court cannot strike down the existing Rules on that basis.
For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition since there is no merit in the constitutional challenge. No other point is pressed.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.11.2014
RK (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud,C.J.)

(P.K.S. Baghel,J.)

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 / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

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

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News LT Grade - Age Matter in Allahabad Highcourt -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News LT Grade - Age Matter in Allahabad Highcourt -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21454 of 2015

Petitioner :- Shalini Vajpai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court that the recruitment process has been initiated by the U.P.Secondary Education Council� for filling up 6645 of LT Grade teachers in Government Inter Colleges. The last date of submission of form was 30th October, 2014.
The grievance of the petitioner is that although on the last date of submission of form the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years but the counseling dates are fixed and before the counselling, � the petitioner will attain the age of 21 years to be eligible to participate in the selection process.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the last date of submission of form the petitioner was underage� and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to participate in the counselling.
There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2015
SKM

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 / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

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

Saturday, April 11, 2015

SARKARI NAUKRI - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

SARKARI NAUKRI   - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

TGT HINDI TEACHER KEE BHRTEE KE LIYE YACHEE NE 3 POINTS KA ULLEKH KIYAA -
1. ADVT. NIKALNE KE SAMAY KOEE TET KA ULLEKH NAHIN THAA, AUR GAME SHURU HONE KE BAAD RULES BADLE NAHIN JAA SAKTE
2. DELHI SARKAR KHUD APNE SCHOOLS MEIN BAGER TET KE BHRTEE KARTEE AA RAHEE HAI
3.BHRTEE SHURU HONE KE SAMAY TET ETC. KE NIYAM NAHIN THE.

COURT NE KAHA KEE -
1. GAME KE RULE BEECH MEIN NAHIN BADLE JAA SAKTE KA AGAR HAM SEHYOG KARENE TO FIR HAM BHEE STATUTORY PROVISION KA ULLANGHAN KARENGE. JO HAM NAHIN KAR SAKTE.
2.SUPREME COURT KA GAME CHANGE KA RULE KOEE UNIVBERSAL RULE NAHIN HAI, KHAS POINT YE HAI KI EMPLOYER NE KOEE SWECHHE / ARBITRARY VIOLATION - SAMANTA KE ADHIKAR ARTICLE 14 KA TO NAHIN KIYAA.
AUR VO HAME NAJAR NAHIN AATA.
ISLEEYE YACHEE KEE APPEAL DIMISS WITHOUT ANY RELIEF.

WPC 5249/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the reserved category with the Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School.   Petitioner   claims   that   he   had   the   necessary   qualifications   of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and having been selected in the interview he ought to have been given
appointment.
2.Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education. The school in questionnamely Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School is represented throughWPC 5249/2012 Page2 of 8 respondent nos. 2 and 3. Counter -affidavits filed by these respondents showthat petitioner was not given appointment because as per the relevant provisions Sections 2(a)&(n) & 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 there cannot be appointment of a teacher
in the school unless the teacher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification, and since the petitioner didnot have the CTET qualification , petitioner was not appointed. Along with the counter - affidavit of respondentno.1, the circular of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi da
ted 29.2.2012 has been annexed as Annexure R- 1 to show that schools are illegally appointing persons as teachers in spite of not having the r equirement of CTETqualification
as per the RTE Act, 2009 and schools have been directed to ensure compliance of CT
ET requirement for appointing of a person as a teacher in the school. This circular
dated 29.2.2012 reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification   Regarding   Recruiting   Only   CTET   Qualified Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012 Page 3 of 8 In pursuance of sub - section (1) or Section 23 of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, theNational Council for Teacher Education,vide their Notification No.215   F.N.61 - 03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S)   dated   23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher to teach in the school s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In accordance with the spirit of the RTE Act and theaforementioned Notification issued by the National council for Teacher    Education,    the    Directorate    of    Education,    vide
Notification     No.     F4(6)(350)/E - IV/2011/621     issued     on 07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of the GNCT Delhi, recognized only the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in lieu of State Eligibility Test for appointment of teachers to teach classes I to VIII in the schools referred in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi Gazette   Extra   Ordinary   Part   IV   on   07.10.2011,   and   also circulated     widely     vide     Circular     No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
- IV/2011/18875 - 18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite the aforesaid provision having come into force with its modification with effect from 07.10.2011, it has been observed that some schools are still considering application
- for recruitment to various teaching posts - submitted by candidates who have not qualified the CTET, which act on their part is unlawful and warrants action as per the as per appropriate provisions of law.
It   is,   therefore,   reiterated   that   with   effect   from   the aforesaid notification, only CTET qualified teachers shall be employed by the government aided schools as referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012 Page 4 of 8 3.
It is therefore clear that 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.
4. In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner claims to the post of TGT(Hindi) is after the National Council for Teacher Education notification dated 23.8.2010, and therefore, unless the petitioner has CTET qualification, and admittedly which qualification
the petitioner did not have at the time of his being selected, he cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent - school.
5. Counsel for the petitioner made three submissions before this Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The first is that the advertisement in   question   did   not   mention   the   requirement   of   CTET qualification and therefore rules of the game cannot be changed once the selection process is set into motion.    The second submission is that Government of NCT of Delhi itself is employing teachers without CTET qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against, and reliance for this purpose is placed upon the advertisement dated 13.9.2011   issued   for   recruitment   of   2012   which   does   not   have   the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 5 of 8 requirement of a CTET qualification for a teacher.
The     third submission made is by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Others 1983 SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284 that vacancies have to be filled in as per the recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not when the vacancies are filled in.
6 . So far as the first argument, which is urged on behalf the petitioner is concerned that 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. Once the law requires a specific qualification for appointment, assuming that the authorities may choose to wink and not comply with the requirement, cannot mean that Court should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute. It cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after 2009, there was a requirement of CTET qualification for a teacher.    Once there is a statutory requirement,
Court can give its imprimatur to an action WPC 5249/2012 Page 6 of 8 which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications.
I therefore, refuse to accede to the argument that merely because the advertisement does not provide requirement of CTET qualification, simply for that reason appointment should be made ignoring the requirement of CTET qualification, and effectively ignoring the statutory provisions and statutory notifications.
7. So far as the second argument is concerned, the same also stands rejected in view of the
above discussion of the first argument , because ,there cannot be estoppel against law. I must also observe that I am doubtful if merely by the petitioner filing the recruitment notification of
2012 for appointment of teachers, teachers would have been appointed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8 .Therefore,   the   argument   that   CTET   qualification   can   be overlooked and can be
so accepted by the Courts is not correct, and also I cannot accept the argument that merely because advertisement of 2012 which is   filed does   not   mention   requirement   of CTET   qualification , therefore, actual recruitment must have been done by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers , who did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012 Page 7 of 8
9. The third and the final argument urged on behalf of the petitioner did carry some substance because it is the law that recruitment should be as per the recruitment rules when the vacancies arise, however, this argument will not hold good if there is statutory provision covering the field. As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take place recruitments only as per the extant recruitment rules when the vacancies
occurred , however, this is not a universal rule and it has so been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725
wherein the Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) and observed that once there are statutory rules, such statutory rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises. Once there are statutory rules and statutory provisions which hold the field , the judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) will not apply and which will really apply to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even with respect to administrative circulars , rules and notifications , there may be in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when the vacancy had arisen inasmuch as it is not unknown to law that if the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 8 of 8 legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application of a particular requirement as per the facts of each case , because,
what is really to be examined is that actually is there a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e whether or not action of the employer is arbitrary.
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer in requiring the retrospective application of a qualification may not be arbitrary, however I need not observe in this regard one way or the other , inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions, statutory rules and statutory notifications which bar the appointment of a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET qualification.
10 . In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25 , 2013 /
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

SOURCE : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VJM/judgement/07-12-2013/VJM25112013CW52492012.pdf

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 / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

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

SARKARI NAUKRI - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

SARKARI NAUKRI   - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

WPC 5249/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.
5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the reserved category with the Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School.   Petitioner   claims   that   he   had   the   necessary   qualifications   of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and having been selected in the interview he ought to have been given
appointment.
2.
Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education
.
T
he school in question
namely Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School
is represented through
WPC 5249/2012
Page
2
of
8
respondent nos. 2 and 3
. Counter
-
affidavits filed by these resp
ondents show
that petitioner was not given appointment because as per the relevant
provisions
Sections 2(a)&(n) & 23(1)
of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 there cannot be appointment of a teacher
in the school unless the te
acher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET)
qualification, and since the petitioner did
not have the CTET qualification
,
petitioner was not appointed. Along with the counter
-
affidavit of respondent
no.1, the circular of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi da
ted 29.2.2012 has been
annexed as Annexure R
-
1 to show that schools are illegally appointing
persons as teachers in spite of
not having
the r
equirement of CTET
qualification
as per the RTE Act, 2009 and schools have been directed to
ensure compliance of CT
ET requirement for appointing of a person as a
teacher in the school. This circular
dated 29.2.2012
reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification   Regarding   Recruiting   Only   CTET   Qualified
Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012
Page
3
of
8
In pursuance of
sub
-
section (1) or Section 23 o
f
the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, the
National Council for Teacher Education,
vide their
Notification
No.215   F.N.61
-
03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S)   dated   23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of
the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible
for appointment as teacher to teach in the school
s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In accordance with the spirit of the RTE Act and the
aforementioned Notification issued by the National council for
Teacher    Education,    the    Directorate    of    Education,    vide
Notification     No.     F4(6
)(350)/E
-
IV/2011/621     issued     on
07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor
of the GNCT Delhi, recognized only the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary
Education in lieu of State Eligibility Test for a
ppointment of
teachers to teach classes I to VIII in the schools referred in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi
Gazette   Extra   Ordinary   Part   IV   on   07.10.2011,   and   also
circulated     widely     vide     Cir
cular     No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
-
IV/2011/18875
-
18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite the aforesaid provision having come into force
with
its modification with effect from 07.10.2011, it has been
observed that some schools are still considering application
-
for
recruitme
nt to various teaching posts
-
submitted by candidates
who have not qualified the CTET, which act on their part is
unlawful and warrants action as per the as per appropriate
provisions of law.
It   is,   therefore,   reiterated   that   with   effect   from   the
aforesaid
notification, only CTET qualified teachers shall be
employed by the government aided schools as referred to in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012
Page
4
of
8
3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in
a school after the passing o
f 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.
4.
In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner c
laims
to the post of TGT(Hindi) is after the National Council for Teacher
Education notification dated 23.8.2010, and therefore, unless the petitioner
has CTET qualification, and admittedly which
qualification
the petitioner
did not have at the time of his
being selected,
he
cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent
-
school.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner made three submissions before this
Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The first is that the
advertisement
in   question   did   not   mention   the   requirement   of   CTET
qualification and therefore rules of the game cannot be changed once the
selection process is set into motion.    The second
submission
is that
Government of NCT of Delhi itself is employing teachers withou
t CTET
qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against,
and reliance for this purpose is placed upon the advertisement dated
13.9.2011   issued   for   recruitment   of   2012   which   does   not   have   the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
5
of
8
requirement of a CTET qualification
for a teacher.
The     third
submission
made
is by placing reliance o
n
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of
Y.V.Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Others 1983
SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284
that vacancies have to be filled in as per
the
recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not
when the vacancies are filled in.
6
.
So far as the
first
argument, which is urged on behalf the
petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way
because the a
dvertisement did not prescribe the requirement of CTET
qualification, in my opinion, th
is
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. Once the law requires a
specific qualification for appointment,
assuming that the
auth
orities may
choose to wink and
not comply with the requirement, cannot mean that
C
ourt should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute. It
cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act,
2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after
2009, there was a requirement of CTET qualification for a teacher.    Once
there is a statutory requiremen
t
,
C
ourt can give its imprimatur to an action
WPC 5249/2012
Page
6
of
8
which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications.
I therefore, r
efuse to accede to the argument
that merely because the
advertisement does not provide requirement of CTET qualifica
tion, simply
for that reason appointment should be made ignoring the requirement of
CTET qualification, and
effectively ignoring the statutory provisions and
statutory notifications.
7
.
So far as the second argument is concerned, the same also
stands reje
cted in view of the
above
discussion
of
the first argument
,
because
,
there cannot be estoppel against law. I must also observe that I am
doubtful if merely by the petitioner filing the recruitment notification of
2012 for appointment of teachers, teachers
would have been appointed by
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8
.
Therefore,   the   argument   that   CTET   qualification   can   be
overlooked
and
can be
so
accepted by the Courts
is not correct,
and also
I
cannot
accept the argument tha
t merely because advertisement of 2012
which
is   filed
does   not   mention   requirement   of
CTET   qualification
,
therefore,
actual recruitment must have been done by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers
,
w
ho did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012
Page
7
of
8
9.
The third and the final argument urged on behalf of the
petitioner did carry some substance because it is the law that recruitment
should be as per the recruitment rules when the vacancies arise, however,
this
argum
ent
will not
hold good
if there is statutory provision covering the
field. As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take place recruitments only as per the extant recruitment rules when the
vacancies
occurred
, however, this is
not a universal rule and it has so been
held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725
wherein the Supreme Court
referred to the earlier judgment in the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
and
ob
served that once there are statutory rules, such statutory
rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be
filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises. Once there are
statutory rules and
statutory provisions which hold the field
,
the judgment in
the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
will not apply and which will really apply
to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even
with respect to administrative circulars
,
rules and notifications
,
there
may be
in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically
ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when
the vacancy
had arisen
inasmuch as it is not
un
known to law t
hat if the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
8
of
8
legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application
of a particular requirement as per the facts of each case
,
because,
what is
really to be examined
is
that
actually is
there a
violation of Article 14 of the
Constituti
on of India i.e whether or not action of the employer is arbitrary.
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer
in requiring the retrospective application of a qualification may not be
arbitrary, however I need not obs
erve in this regard one
way
or the other
,
inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions,
statutory rules and statutory notifications which bar the appointment of a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET q
ualification.
1
0
.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25
, 201
3
/
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

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 / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

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