TET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - टीईटी में अहम बदलावों की तैयारी

TET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - - 

टीईटी में अहम बदलावों की तैयारी

नया खाका

एनसीटीई ने देश के सभी राज्यों से मांगे सुझाव, 2019 से लागू होंगे कार्यक्रम

राज्य ब्यूरो, इलाहाबाद : शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) में अहम बदलाव करने की तैयारी है। टीईटी का जिस तरह से खींचा जा रहा है उसे पार करना बीटीसी एवं अन्य अभ्यर्थियों के लिए आसान नहीं होगा। इसमें युवाओं को मौके भले ही ज्यादा मिलेंगे, लेकिन परीक्षा का पैटर्न ऐसा होगा, जिसे आसानी से उत्तीर्ण नहीं किया जा सकेगा। प्रदेश के अफसरों का मंथन पूरा हो गया है, जल्द ही रिपोर्ट भेजी जाएगी।

प्रदेश में टीईटी 2011 से लागू है और अब तक पांच बार इसकी परीक्षा भी हो चुकी है। राष्ट्रीय शिक्षक शिक्षा परिषद यानी एनसीटीई इस परीक्षा को और प्रभावी बनाने की दिशा में इन दिनों तेजी से काम कर रहा है। एनसीटीई ने देश के सभी राज्यों को कुछ बिंदु भेजे हैं और उन पर सुझाव मांगा है। 2019 से नया कार्यक्रम जारी होने के आसार हैं, वहीं इसमें एक बिंदु यह है कि टीईटी परीक्षा साल में दो बार अनिवार्य रूप से हो, परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करने का प्रतिशत तय किया जाए, अभ्यर्थी हर विषय को उत्तीर्ण जरूर करें आदि। 

सभी बिंदुओं पर मंथन पूरा, नियामक प्राधिकारी जल्द भेजेंगी जवाब

युवाओं को मिलेंगे ज्यादा मौके लेकिन परीक्षा का पैटर्न होगा कठिन

 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
 

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - एक्सपर्ट्स की राय में UP की समस्त भर्तियों पर फैसला जल्दी हो जायेगा , कारण इससे जुड़े अन्य मामलो पर पहले ही काफी हियरिंग्स हो चुकी हैं , दस्तावेज व् तथ्य सामने हैं

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - टेट वेटेज चयन में अनिवार्य है  - 

एक्सपर्ट्स की राय में UP की समस्त  भर्तियों पर फैसला जल्दी हो जायेगा , कारण इससे जुड़े अन्य मामलो पर 
पहले ही काफी हियरिंग्स हो चुकी हैं , दस्तावेज व् तथ्य सामने हैं 


हमारे ब्लॉग का मानना है की टेट वेटेज जरुरी है , और पूर्ण हल NCTE  के दो नियमो में पहले ही स्पष्ट है :-
1. अभ्यर्थी टेट परीक्षा कितनी भी बार दे सकता है और टेट मार्क्स इम्प्रूव कर सकता है 
2. 9 बी - चयन में टेट मार्क्स का वेटेज दिया जाये  

दोनों पॉइंट्स एक दूसरे को पूर्ण करते हैं और बेहतर स्पष्टीकरण देते हैं 

See NCTE Guidelines : http://www.ncte-india.org/RTE-TET-guidelines%5B1%5D%20(latest).pdf


NCTE ही अधिकृत संस्था है जो कक्षा 1 से 8 तक के शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए न्यूनतम योग्यता तय करती है । 
और इसलिए इसके नियम  उत्तर प्रदेश की कक्षा 1 से 8 तक की भर्ती के लिए बाध्यकारी हैं । 
अगर उत्तर प्रदेश की शिक्षक भर्ती की कोई नियमावली भी होगी तो उसे अपने नियम परिवर्तित कर इन नियमो को मानना बाध्य है । 
NCTE केंद्र सरकार की अधिकृत एजेंसी है जो की आर टी ई एक्ट के अनुसार पूरे देश में कक्षा 1 से 8 तक की शिक्षक भर्ती के नियम तय करती है ,
और टी ई टी परीक्षा उसी के नियमो के तहत है , इस आर टी ई एक्ट की मुफ्त शिक्षा अधिनियम के तहत केंद्र सरकार राज्य सरकार को बजट देती है ,
और शिक्षकों की सेलरी भी इस बजट से आती है । 

तो आप समझ सकते हैं ई आर टी ई एक्ट क्या है और उसके नियमो का पालन किसी राज्य / देश के संस्थाओं के लिए क्यों जरुरी हैं । 



 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
 

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - Private / Aided Schools mein Bager TET Ke Bhrtee Avedh, High Court ne Kaha kee NCTE Notification / Central Act Prbhavee Hai State Govt Act 1981 Ke Oopar, Aur Isleeye Kendra (NCTE/ RTE Act) ko Paalan Kiya Jana Jaruree Rajya Sarkar ke Oopar Kendra Sarkar Ka Niyam Havee Aur Isleeye NCTE / RTE Act ke taht Hongee Bhrtiyan, Rajya sarkar Apnee Seema Ke Bheetar Hee Kanoon Bana Saktee hai

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - - 

Private / Aided Schools mein Bager TET Ke Bhrtee Avedh, High Court ne Kaha kee NCTE Notification / Central Act Prbhavee Hai State Govt Act 1981 Ke Oopar,
Aur Isleeye Kendra (NCTE/ RTE Act) ko Paalan Kiya Jana Jaruree

Rajya Sarkar ke Oopar Kendra Sarkar Ka Niyam Havee Aur Isleeye NCTE / RTE Act ke taht Hongee Bhrtiyan,
Rajya sarkar Apnee Seema Ke Bheetar Hee Kanoon Bana Saktee hai


The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification." 


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 7 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16049 of 2016 

Petitioner :- Jagbeer Singh And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Ashok Khare,Dhirendra Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh 

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. 
Two rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record. 
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.7 to 13 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 5. 
The petitioners are seeking quashing of the orders dated 14.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 whereby the required eligibility qualification of TET in the case of concerned private respondents has been waived on the ground that the selection process had commenced prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 08.04.2013 and the requirement of possession of the eligibility TET Examination can only be effected after the Government Order dated 08.04.2013. 
A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner no.1 is stated to be the outgoing Treasurer/Life Member of the Committee of Management of the General Body of the Gurukul Sarvoday Inter College, Panchli Khurd, Meerut and the petitioner no.2 is stated to be the Life Member of the General Body of the Gurukul Sarvoday Inter College, Panchli Khurd, Meerut, therefore, the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners is not maintainable. 
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015, Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein the Division Bench has held as under: 
"The appellant has filed an application for leave to appeal, which has been allowed. 
A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the sixth respondent to the maintainability of the appeal, on the ground that the appellant, who is his own brother, has no locus to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly having regard to the observations which were contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 July 2013. The issue before the Court is as to whether the special appeal would be maintainable at the behest of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the complainant at whose behest the enquiry was initiated against the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent has obtained employment as an Assistant Teacher in an aided institution and is in receipt of salary from the public exchequer. The private dispute between the appellant and the sixth respondent may be a reason for the Court to tread in a matter, such as the present, with a great deal of circumspection and caution. However, the issue still remains as to whether the Court should shut its eyes to the facts which have been placed on the record. In our view, there is an element of public interest involved where a person, who has obtained public employment and is in receipt of salary from an institution which is aided by the State, seeks to do so on the basis of documentary record indicating a particular date of birth. 
We are of the view that the learned Single Judge having found merit in the substance of the grievance of the sixth respondent that the order against him was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, should have set aside that order and remanded the proceedings back to the authority for a fresh decision after complying with the principles of natural justice. Having come to the conclusion that there was a breach of those principles, the learned Single Judge manifestly exceeded the jurisdiction under Article 226 by launching upon an enquiry of the Court in regard to what is the correct date of birth of the sixth respondent. The law on the subject is indeed well settled. Where a breach of natural justice has occurred during the course of an enquiry, the appropriate course for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to set aside the ultimate decision which is complained of and to remit the proceedings back to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry from the stage at which the breach of those principles have occurred. 
For the purpose of these proceedings, we are desisting from making any observation on the merits of the rival contentions so as to not preclude a fair and proper enquiry being conducted by the competent authority. However, it would suffice to note that having duly considered the material which has been placed on the record of these proceedings, we are emphatically of the view that a proper enquiry by the competent authority should not be stultified or obstructed and the law must be allowed to take its own course. Insofar as the aspect of locus is concerned, it is not now in dispute that though the earlier writ petition of the appellant was dismissed, an enquiry was initiated by the State. Once the process of conducting an enquiry has been initiated, it is necessary to ensure that enquiry is taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. If a breach of the principles of natural justice had occurred, that could be remedied by setting aside the order and restoring the proceedings back to the competent authority. 
For these reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in entering upon the merits and rendering a finding of fact once the contention of the sixth respondent that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice was accepted. The Court must not also be oblivious of the fact that in such matters, the process of enquiry is set in motion often by a complainant. The fact that the complainant may have some interest of his own, is a ground for the Court to act with care but that cannot shut out a proper enquiry altogether, particularly in a case, such as the present, where the sixth respondent is in the employment of an aided educational institution and is drawing his salary from the public exchequer. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal in part. " 
For the reasons aforesaid it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents No.7 to 13 have been appointed as Assistant Teacher. The impugned order dated 14.03.2016 of the Regional Level Committee proposes to grant approval to such appointment and the consequential order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.03.2016. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this controversy has already been settled by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [2013 (6) 310 (FB)]. Paragraphs 86 & 87 of the judgment reads as under: 
"86. We fully approve the view of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case confirming the authority of the Central Government and the NCTE to prescribe the qualifications as detailed in Para 52 and 53 of the reported judgment. We are also in complete agreement with the division bench that after the coming into force of the 2009 Act and the prescription of qualifications thereunder through the Academic Authority the State is not a free agent as held in Para 51 thereof. The failure of the State Government to timely implement the qualifications prescribed before making any appointment after 23.8.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory. Every rule of the State Government for qualification has to be abide by the same by virtue of the force of Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act. 

87. The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification." 
It is submitted that the Full Bench has held that a notification was issued by the National Council for Teacher Education on 23.08.2010 holding that the Teachers Eligibility Test is compulsory for teachers to qualify and the Full Bench has held that all appointments made after 23.08.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory.� It was further held that merely because the State Government delayed the incorporation of the rules it cannot take away the impact of the requirement of the notification dated 23.08.2010. 
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the respondents no.7 to 13 have not qualified the TET Examination. 
This factual position has been disputed by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitting that the respondent no.9 has passed his TET. However, this fact has not been disclosed in his counter affidavit but the photocopy of the certificate issued on 25.11.2011 by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad of the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 (Primary Level) has been passed on to the Court during the course of the arguments. 
For reasons aforesaid the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee and the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot survive and are accordingly quashed. 
The writ petition is allowed. 
The matter shall now be reconsidered by the Regional Level Committee in the light of the observations made above and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office. 
Order Date :- 10.5.2016 
N Tiwari 

 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
 

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - TET Mandatory Cretaed Problem for Appointment for the Post of Teacher -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - TET Mandatory Cretaed Problem for Appointment for the Post of Teacher - 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Chief Justice's Court 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2016 

Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh And 2 Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav 

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J. 

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellants are in special appeal. 
An advertisement was issued on 28 May 1999 for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The appellants have a grievance that though they were qualified for the post and have submitted applications for appointment, they were not permitted to appear before the interview board. 
The appellants obtained a certificate in teaching titled the 'Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad' in 1998 as disclosed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. The State Government, by a notification dated 11 August 1997 de-recognized the aforesaid certificate course as a result of which, it ceased to be equivalent to the BTC. Initially, in a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Girijesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors1, it was held that the Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad two years' course even if it was completed in 1998 (after de-recogntion on 11 August 1997) should be treated as equivalent to the BTC training course and the appellants there be considered for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement. According to the appellants, they were parties to a writ petition2 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 17 November 1999 in terms of the earlier decision. The special appeal filed by the State was dismissed for want of prosecution on 1 December 2006. 
On 27 June 2015, in pursuance of the directions issued by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition previously filed by the appellants, the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi issued an order. The District Basic Education Officer has, inter alia, held against the appellants on the ground that their certificate course had been de-recognized. The second ground which has also weighed in the decision is that the appellants do not possess the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) certificate, which is mandatory in view of the directions of the NCTE and the judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors3. 
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that in regard to the validity of the certificate obtained by the appellants, there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge inter partes dated 17 November 1999, directing that the course of 'Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad' will be treated as equivalent to the BTC for the purpose of appointment. 
For the purpose of these proceedings, we will proceed on the basis that there is a judgment inter partes, as submitted on behalf of the appellants. However, from the prayers contained in the writ petition, it is evident that the appellants were seeking a mandamus for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools. The District Basic Education Officer has recorded, in his impugned order dated 27 June 2015, that the selection in pursuance of the advertisement had already been completed and all posts have been filled up. If the appellants seek fresh appointment, then the absence of TET would be fatal to their claim. Once the TET is mandatory under the law having due regard to the regulations of the NCTE, the appellants would not be entitled for a mandamus in the absence of fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. The selection in pursuance of the advertisement had been completed way back in time and, at the present stage, there is no question of disturbing that selection. 
For these reasons, we see no reason to entertain the special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 
Order Date :- 4.2.2016 
RKK/- 
(Yashwant Varma, J)                 (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) 

Chief Justice's Court 
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.12485 of 2016 
In re: 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2016 

Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh And 2 Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav 

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J. 

The delay of 104 days in filing the special appeal is condoned since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit in support. 
The delay condonation application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 
Order Date :- 4.2.2016 
RKK/- 
(Yashwant Varma, J)                 (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) 

 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
 

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Union Territory Puducherry Consider TET (CTET) only as Qualifying for Employment, Due to non Uniformity in TNTET, APTET, KTET and consider only CTET qualification, but tet marks wtz not prescribed-

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Union Territory Puducherry Consider TET (CTET) only as Qualifying for Employment, Due to non Uniformity in TNTET, APTET, KTET and consider only CTET qualification, but tet marks wtz not prescribed- 

Source : http://schooledn.puducherry.gov.in/HTML/CircuTenders/circular2015/TET_qualify.pdf

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
ABSTRACT
Directorate of School Education - Secretariat Wing - Applicability of and qualifying
marks in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - Orders - Issued.
_,
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
SECRETARIAT WING
c. O. Ms. No. 76 Puducherry, the 18tt' March,2Ol5
READ: I.D.No. 2103/DSE/Estt.N/C l2OI2, dt. O2.O2.2O15 from
the Director of School Education, Puducherry.
ORDER:
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2OO9 (RTE ACT,2OO9).
the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Educatiorr
(NCTE) as the Academic Authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for ar
person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher vide their Notification
No.S.O.75O (E), dated 3l"t March 2OlO.
2. Accordingly, the NCTE vide its Notifrcation No.6I-312012O10/NCTE/(N&S),
dated 23..i Auglrst 2O1O, has laid down the minimum qualilications for a person to
be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in
clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act, 2OO9. One of the minimum qualifications
prescribed by the NCTE is that he/she should pass the Teacher Eligibility'fest
(TET) which will be conducted by the appropriate Government.
3. The NCTE has further communicated broad guidelines for conducting
Teacher Eligibility Test vide their letter No. 76-4/2O10/NCTE/Acad, ciarted
11.O2.2O11. The said guidelines have given liberty to State Government / Union
Territory with legislature to consider the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by
another State / Union Territory with legislature. It has also been stipulated that
the State / Union Territory would consider the TET conducted by the Central
Government in case it decides not to conduct its own TET. Further, as per the
NCTE guidelines, Governments may consider giving concessions to persons
belonging to SC, ST, OBC, Differently-abled persons etc. in accordance with their
extant reservation policy.
4. As the Union Territory of Puducherry does not have a Board of Education r,f
its own, Puducherry and Karaikal regions are following the curriculum of Tarnil
Nadu, while Mahe and Yanam regions are following the curriculum of Kerala arrd
Andhra Pradesh respectively. Considering this, the Director of School Education
had proposed to recognise the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the
Governments of Tamil Nadu (TNTET), Andhra Pradesh (APTET) and Kerala (KTET)

in addition to the central reacher Eligibility Test -(crET)
conducted by the central
Board of Secondary Educ.tlon lcesi). iccordingly in principle approval was
accorded for considering TNTET, KTET, APTET ut',i cror for the purpose of
.ppoi.rt-"nt in this Union Territory'
5. Now the Director of School Edu-cltion ni"^:i.'*"d that the Governments of
TamilNadu,KeralaandAndhraPradeshhaveprescribeddifferentqualifyingmarks
forconsideringapersonTETpassedandthattheCBSE,whichconductsCTET,
has left the decisio" to the recruiting authorities concerned'
6.TheDirectorofSchoolEducationhasfurtherexplainedthepractical
difficulties involved in considering all the TETs in view of the different qualifying
-"rU" prescribed in each TET' as listed below:
(i)Thereisnouniformityinqualifyingmarksforvariousreservedcategoriesin
the TETs conducted uy rJr "Nalu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh as they
Prevailing there'
(ii)Differenceinqualifyingmarksforreservedcategoriesineachregionofthis
Union f""iioty t'a" t"a to alleged discrimination'
(iii)TheGo'ue'nmentofAndhraPradeshhasconvertedtheAPTETasTETcum
TeacherRecruitmentTestandresultantlycandidatesfromYanamregionare
not allowed to aPPear for APTET'
(iv)AbsenceofordersclearlyspecifyingtheapplicabilityofTETgiveslibertyto ' ' job seekers to draw their own inference'
T,Therefore,theDirectorofschoolEducationhassubmittedaproposalto
recognizeand consider only th. JrET conducted by the CBSE for the purpose of
appointmentintheUnionTerritoryofPuducherryforthefollowingreasons:
(i)CTETisconductedonalllndiabasiswithauniformsyllabus.
ii], ffi Tls:""l'rff iTrl,:ffi ?t xT"..' s o r th e c e ntr ar G ove rnm ent ( KV S'
NVS,CentralTibetanSchools,etc.)andschoolsundertheadministrative
control of UT,s "1 "1'",'6i*"'t,,
oaj," & Nagar Haveli, D-aman & Diu and
Andaman & Nicobar Islands' Lakshadweep and NCT of Delhi'
(iv)ThecBsEhaslefttheissueoffixingqualifying*T|"totherecruiting
authoritiesconcernedandhencetheremaybenolegalimpedimentinfixing
our owrr qualifYrng marks'
(v)Govt.ordershavealreadybeenissuedtointroduceCBsEsyllabusina
phased.*"',,,..fromthisyearandaccordinglyCBSEsyllabushasbeen
introduced in I standard in all Government "It'oot* in all the regions and
henceitwouldbeaptandappropriatetoconsiderCTETinthisUnion
Territory


8. The Director of school Bducation has further proposed
qualifying marks in CTET for various categories as follows:
to prescribc
Sl.No Category Qualifying marks
1 General Category 6Oo/o ( 90 marks)
2 Most Backward Class 55o/o (82 marks)
3 Extreme Backward Class 55o/o (82 marks)
4 Other Backward Class 55o/o (82 marks)
5 Backward Class Muslim 55% (82 marks)
6 Scheduled Caste 5Oo/o (75 marks)
7 Backward Tribe 5O%o (75 marks)
8 Differently- abled persons 50% (75marks)
9. It has been further suggested that all those who have already appearecl for'
TNTET, KTET and APTET may be considered eligible till the validity period of thr:
certificates, which is seven yea-rs as per NCTE norms, provided they have scored
the marks prescribed above. If they have not obtained the minimum qualiff ing
marks, they should appear for CTET only in future for the purpose of employment
in this Union Territory. It has also been suggested that those who have appeared
for CTET and obtained the minimum qualifying marks as above need not appear
again for CTET and those who have failed to secure the above said marks may
appear for CTET to qualify themselves.
10. After careful consideration of the proposal, and except as respects things
done or omitted to be done before such order, the Lieutenant Governor is pleased to
order that hereafter, only the Central Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) shall be considered recognizecl for
the purpose of appointment as teacher in class I - VIII in the Union Territorv of
Puducherry.
1 1. The Lieutenant Governor is pleased further to prescribe the qualifying marks
in CTET for various categories of persons in the Union Territory of Puducherry as
follows:
Sl.No Category Qualifying marks
I General Category 600/o ( 90 marks)
2 Most Backward Class 55% (82 marks)
3 Extreme Backward Class 55% (82 marks)
4 Other Backward Class 55o/o (82 marks)
5 Backward Class Muslim 55o/o (82 marks)
6 Scheduled Caste 50% (75marks)
7 Backward Tribe 50% (75 marks)
8 Differently-abled persons 5Oo/o (75 marks)


,t2. It is further ordered that those who have already appeared for TNTET' KTPT
ana np.rBt may be considered eligible tilr the validity period of the certificates' 1'e'
forSevenyears'aSperNCTEnorrns'providedtheyhavescoredthemarks
prescribedabove.rtt,"yhavenotobtainedtheminimumqualisringmarks,they
should appeaf for CTET only in future for the purpose of employment in this Union
Territory.Thosewhohavealready"pp"*"aforCTETandobtainedtheminimum
qualifyingmarksprescribedlboveneednotappearagainforCTETandthosewho
havefailedtosecuretheabovesaidmarksmay-.pp.-forCTETtoqualify
themselves.
13.-Thisordertakesprospectiveeffectonlyandthepastcasesdecidedotherwise
s'nal not be re-oPened'
/ BY ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR/
,J'r^*Yffi^1,
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(scHOOL EDUCATION)
To
The Director of Stationery and Printing'
puducherry - wittr a requ""t ao orrot-rlt, this order in the next issue of the official
'Gazetteandtosupply50copiest]rereoftothisDirectorate.
CopY to:
1. The Director of School Education' Puducherry
2. TheJoint Director' DSE' Puducherry
3. The SPD, SSA, DSE' Puducherry'
4. The senior Accounts officer, GIA section, DsE, puducherry'
5.TheSecretary,CentralBoardofSecondaryEducation,NewDelhi.
6. The Employment Officer' Employment Exchange' Puducherry'
7. Thep.s to Honble chief Minister/Education Minister/chief secretary'
S.TheP.AtoSecretarypa,,".tio')/DirectorofSchoolEducation,Puducherry
9. The Central Records Branch' Puducherry'
IO'EDPSection,DSE,Puducherry-forhostingthisorderintheofficialwebsite.
11.SPare coPY'









 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 - 82 TET Marks Candidate are Passed or Not - A big dabate on social media -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - 82 TET Marks Candidate are Passed or Not - A big dabate on social media - 

82 Marks Issue In - Social Media. Some Candidates shared below order -
In some highcourt order 82 Marks candidate were not eligible

However I felt NCTE guidelines said relaxation of 5% marks is based on State Govt reservation policy else 60% marks candidate are only passed.
CTET considered 60% for GEN and 55% for Reserved Category.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 383 of 2013

Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Special Secretary & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Manoj Kumar Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Archana Tyagi

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Tyagi, Advocate for respondents.
Applications have been invited by means of advertisement dated 5th December, 2012 and the said advertisement in question proceeds to mention that only those candidates are eligible to apply, who have successfully passed the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test. The said advertisement in question proceeds to mention that those candidates would be treated as eligible who in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test have secured 60% marks and in reference to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC category, who have received 55% marks.
Accepted position is that petitioner has secured 54.67% marks as he has secured 82 marks in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test out of 150 marks and petitioner's submission is that from the total number of 150 questions, it is an impossibility for a candidate to secure 55% marks as no candidate can achieve 82.5 marks in the said examination. Petitioner has further proceeded to mention that either a candidate will secure 82 marks which would mean 54.67% marks or 83 marks which would mean 55.33% marks and in view of this securing 55% marks by a candidate i.e. 82.5 is an impossibility. Petitioner in this background has contended that 54.67% marks should be rounded up and treated as 55% marks.
Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that a practically impossible situation has been created as awarding of 82.5 marks which is equal to 55% marks is an impossibility and in view of this writ petition deserves to be allowed by considering 54.67 marks as 55%.
Countering the said submission Shri Pankaj Tyagi, Advocate on the other hand contended that a candidate who has to be accepted as successful has to secure on the minimum side 55% marks and in view of this only those candidates who have secured 83 marks in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test are being treated as eligible and 54.67% cannot be treated to be equivalent to 55%, as such present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Question is can 54.67% marks in aggregate be treated minimum 55% in aggregate? Admittedly 54.67% marks in aggregate are less than 55% marks in aggregate. In view of this by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that petitioner has to his credit the eligibility criteria so prescribed. Said issue in the past has already been negated by this Court, as per the judgement in the case of Ranjana Kushwaha Vs. state of U.P. 2009 (2) E&MC 94, wherein also requirement was 45% and candidate had received 44.8%, therein candidate have been held to be ineligible, and in the said judgement, have been the two earlier judgements have been referred to wherein 49.67% and 49.66% have not been accepted as equivalent to 50%, namely the case of Vani Pali Tripathi Vs. Director, 2003(1) UPLBEC 427; Pranjal Bishnoi Vs. U.P. Technical University 2003 (3) ESC 1470. In such a situation 54.67% marks cannot be treated as equivalent to 55% when emphasis is given in the eligibility criteria, to the minimum mark to be there, then said minimum makes has to be obtained by concerned candidate and there can not be any scope of compromise with the same by invoking principal of rounding up.

Apex Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commissioner. vs Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6201 OF 2011) decided on 02.08.2011 reported in 2011 (8) SCC 108 has taken view that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement is being extracted below:

"9. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off.
10. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same then it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
12. The entire record of the main written examination was also produced before us which indicates that there are also candidates who have got more than the respondent in the aggregate but has not been able to get 33% marks in each paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks in each paper in the Main written examination could and should have also been called for viva-voce examination, which would amount to a very strange and complicated situation and also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of statutory provision.
13. When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration."

The requirement under law is of having 55% marks by a candidate and in view of this a candidate who has secured less than 55% marks i.e. less than 82.5 marks in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, cannot be treated as eligible by any means and those candidates who have got less than 55% on plain mathematical calculation have been treated to be ineligible, accordingly, theory as has been suggested by petitioner that as it would be an act of impossibility cannot be accepted.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2013
Shekhar
 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 - शिक्षामित्रों के बिना टीईटी समायोजन का विरोध सुप्रीम कोर्ट में करने की तैयारी -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - शिक्षामित्रों के बिना टीईटी समायोजन का विरोध सुप्रीम कोर्ट में करने की तैयारी - 

Ganesh Dixhit >>>>>>>

साथियों,
रोजगारपूर्ण सुगम जीवन स्थापत्य के प्रयासों की गति शासकीय शिथिलता और अकर्मण्यता और अदालती सुस्ती के कारण विधिक समर्थन और पूर्ण योग्य युवा अपने जीवन के सबसे महत्त्वपूर्ण और कीमती काल में जोशहीन होकर ऊहापोह में फँस घर में बैठ भाग्य के सहारे भविष्य की चिंता में अपनी योग्यता की व्यर्थ आज़माइश में लगे हुए हैं,ऐसी दुर्दिन परिस्थति में कुछ विशेष बिंदु निम्न हैं -
1- sc में हमारे केस की सुनवाई की तारीख अभी निश्चित नहीँ हुई है,जिसकी पूरी सम्भावना जुलाई में होने की बन रही है,हमारी टीम सुप्रीम कोर्ट में तत्पर है !
2- 3 मई को abvp ऑफीस केसरबाग लखनऊ में सभी चयनित और अच्य्नित अभ्यर्थियों की प्रादेशिक मीटिंग आहूत की गयी है,सभी साथियों की उपस्थिति अनिवार्य है !
मित्रों,शिक्षामित्रों से हमें एक चीज़ सीखनी होगी की उन्होंने बिल्कुल अवैध और हर वर्ग के विरोध के बावजूद अपने अनिर्णित दूरस्थ प्रशिक्षण को मान्य करवा अपने संगठन की शक्ति के बल पर समायोजन करवा लिया आगे चाहे जो हो !
वहीँ हमारे टीईटी 2011 के साथी खुद को भ्रमवश ज्ञानी मान अकर्मण्य बन बैठै है,अगर हमें पूर्ण समायोजन करवाना है तो लगना पड़ेगा ! हाइ कोर्ट की हिलाहवाली के चलते शिक्षामित्रों के बिना टीईटी समायोजन का विरोध सुप्रीम कोर्ट में करने की तैयारी है,हमारी टीम अग्रसर है ! हमें हर हाल में शिक्षामित्रों के अवैध समायोजन को रोकना होगा तभी टीईटी 2011 का समायोजन सम्भव है !
वहीँ बॉर्डरलाईन के साथी 5 मई को scert घेराव को पहुंचे,तभी दवाब बना माँग मनवा सकेंगे !
चयनित साथियों से यही कहूँगा की कामचोरी और अकर्मण्यता छोड़ कल हर जिले में bsa और dm को अपनी खस्ता माली हालात बताते हुए मानदेय शीघ्र देने का ज्ञापन दें
अन्यथा यूँ ही स्कूल में पढ़ा बेगारी पर 2017 तक अपने घरवालों के पैसे मंगाते रहें,फैसला आपका !
कल के ज्ञापन कार्यक्रम की फोटो fb पर अवश्य डालें !
फ़ेसबुकिये या व्हाट्स एप्प से नेतागिरी करने वाले नेताओ से अपील है की ज़मीन पर काम करके दिखाये वरना चयनित लोगों का नौकरी पा लेने की ख़ुशी जल्द ही लाचार बेरोज़गारी में बदली दिखेगी,अगर सरकारी नौकरी करनी है तो संगठन बना सरकार पर दवाब से ही अपने काम करवाने होंगे अन्यथा दिनो के काम सालों में करेंगे !
आपस में लड़ाई बन्द कर एकसाथ सरकारी तंत्र पर हमला करें,योग्य लोगों के साथ अन्याय क्यों ?
हम सबकी लड़ाई सरकारी भ्रष्ट और पक्षपाती तंत्र से है ! सो अभी नहीँ कभी नहीँ,निकलना होगा,एक साथ हमला करना होगा !
अगर कुछ हुनर है तो दिखाओ,मोहताज नहीँ करमवीर हो,दिखाओ !
हमारा ह्क हमें लेना आता है,कायर न समझे हम पढ़े- लिखो को कोई !
हम सत्य और न्याय के पथ पर हैं,ईश्वर साथी है,विजय साक्षी है,शेष कल के ज्ञापन के बाद...
सन्घेय शक्ति सर्वदा !
जय हिन्द जय टीईटी !!

 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