UPTET : शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन

UPTET : शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन

लखनऊ : बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित स्कूलों में 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए निकट भविष्य में शुरू होने वाली प्रक्रिया के तहत अभ्यर्थियों को ऑनलाइन आवेदन करना होगा। शासन स्तर पर इस बारे में सहमति बन चुकी है। उधर अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) के आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद को सौंपे जाने के प्रस्ताव को मुख्यमंत्री ने अनुमोदित कर दिया है। मंगलवार को प्रमुख सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा सुनील कुमार की अध्यक्षता में हुई बैठक में यह तय हुआ कि परिषदीय स्कूलों में शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए अभ्यर्थियों को ऑनलाइन आवेदन करना होगा। इससे पूरी प्रक्रिया में पारदर्शिता बनी रहती है। साथ ही आवेदनों में धांधली की गुंजायश न के बराबर होती है। गौरतलब है कि राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) ने राज्य सरकार को बीएड उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को 31 मार्च 2014 तक शिक्षक नियुक्त करने के लिए समयसीमा में छूट दे दी है। उधर हाई कोर्ट ने भी शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया जल्द शुरू करने का निर्देश दिया है। ऐसे में शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के लिए जल्द विज्ञापन जारी होने की संभावना है। शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के लिए बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग जिलेवार रिक्तियों का ब्योरा इकट्ठा कर रहा है। अब यह भी तय हो गया है कि भविष्य में राज्य में टीईटी का आयोजन सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद करायेंगे। इस संबंध में राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) की ओर से भेजे गए प्रस्ताव को मुख्यमंत्री ने अनुमोदित कर दिया है। पिछले साल टीईटी का आयोजन यूपी बोर्ड ने किया था। टीईटी के परीक्षा परिणाम में धांधली उजागर होने पर मुख्य सचिव जावेद उस्मानी की अध्यक्षता में गठित उच्च स्तरीय समिति ने परीक्षा के आयोजन के लिए संस्था के चयन का भी बिंदु उठाया था। इस पर एससीईआरटी ने टीईटी के आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद को सौंपने का प्रस्ताव भेजा था।


News Source : Jagran (19.9.12)
******************************
Online process for recruitment is going to start. Helps in speedy, efficient recruitment process and will take less time.

However Niyamavali for recruitment still unknown and picture may be clear by the end of this month.
(Next Hearing in Allahabad high court is on 27th Sept. 2012)

If anybody have updated Niyamavali with  source link, then please provide it along with source link.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECISION REGARDING - STATE TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST HARYANA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECISION REGARDING - STATE TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST HARYANA

ITEM NO.55                 COURT NO.6               SECTION IVB

              S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29755/2010

(From the judgement and order           dated 06/04/2010 in CWP
No.13045/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

MAHENDER KUMAR & ORS.                                 Petitioner(s)
                 VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 24882 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for intervention and permission to file rejoinder affidavit and with prayer for interim relief and office report)
with
I.A.No.1162 (Appln.for intervention)
SLP(C) NO. 24884 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of petitioner and office
report)
SLP(C) NO. 24883 of 2010
(With office report)
SLP(C) NO. 25010 of 2010
(With office report)

Date: 21/02/2012    These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s)      Mr.Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
                       Mr.N.P.Midha, Adv.
                       Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta,A.O.R.(Not Present)

For Respondent(s)      Mr.P.P.Rao,Sr.Adv.
For RR Nos.1 & 3       Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.
                       Mr.Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv.

For RR No.4            Mr.D.S.Chauhan, Adv.
                       Mr.Rajinder Juneja, Adv.

For RR No.2            Mr. John Mathew,Adv.

                       Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.


             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R


           The IA No. 38 for deleting the name of petitoner no. 2852, i.e., Chaman S/o Dharamvir in SLP(C) No. 24884 of 2010 is allowed in terms of the prayer.

           These   petitions are directed  against  order  dated 06.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High   Court    whereby    the     exemption        granted    to   the   Guest      Faculty (Lecturers     /     Teachers)    from     passing      the    requirement   of    School Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, 'STET') for the purpose of regular appointment to Group 'B' posts and the grant of weightage of 24 marks in lieu of the experience gained by working as Guest Faculty was quashed.

With a view to ensure that the education of students does not suffer due to non-availability of teachers the Government of Haryana, Department of Education framed policy for recruitment of Guest Faculty. For this purpose detailed guidelines were issued on 18.9.2006. After one year and two months, the State Government
issued   instructions vide circular dated 17.11.2007    to    all    the concerned officers to stop engaging Teachers on the Guest Faculty basis. On 2.12.2008, the Government issued guidelines for temporary
adjustment      of    displaced     Guest          Teachers    by   way    of    stop    gap arrangement.         By circular dated 2.3.2009, the Government amended the terms and conditions enshrined in letters dated 29.11.2005,16.12.2005      and    27.9.2006     for       engaging       the   Teachers     on     Guest
Faculty.
 In      furtherance      of    the       requisition     received     from     the concerned department, the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short,   'the     Commission')   issued      advertisement     no.     3    which   was published    in    newspapers    on    18.6.2009      for   recruitment      of     1317 Temporary Lecturers (School Cadre), HES-II (Group-B) were as under:

 "Essential Qualification:
    1.Essential Qualifications for the Lecturers of all     Subjects except Lecturer in Chemistry, History, Maths
    and Pol. Science:
    (i)Post Graduate Degree in relevant subject from  a recognized university alongwith at least 50% marks.
    (ii)Certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test.
    (iii)Matric with Hindi / Sanskrit."
The relaxation clauses contained in the advertisement did not provide for exemption to any class / category of candidates from passing STET. However, after 15 days of the publication of advertisement,      the   Commission    issued     corrigendum       dated   3.7.2009 incorporating therein the decision taken by the State Government to give exemption to the Guest Teachers from passing STET and age relaxation apart from giving additional 6 marks for six months' experience      subject   to   the    maximum    of   24    marks.    The    relevant portions of the corrigendum are reproduced below:

"Besides as per the decision of the State Government    the guest teachers applying for these posts will be
 given exemption from passing the School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) and age relaxation in the upper
 age limit in additional weightage for having served the department as guest teacher will be given as under:
 "No weightage will given to a person who  has served for less than six months.
For the six months experience 6% additional marks to be given and one percent additional will be given for every  additional month of engagement subject to maximum  24 marks."

Necessary Stipulation:
In case the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court does not agree to the grant of relaxation to the guest teachers, the same will not be given to them at the time of final selection."

 Respondent       no.   2,    viz., Ashok    Kumar     challenged   the corrigendum in Writ Petition No. 13045 of 2009 mainly on the ground that the so-called policy decision taken by the State Government to
exempt the Teachers engaged as Guest Faculty from passing STET and grant    of    weightage        of   additional       marks    is      ultra    vires     the provisions of the Haryana State Educational Lecturer School Cadre (Group    'C')     Service      Rules,    1998   (for    short,     'the       Rules')    and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because that would amount to indirect regularisation of the services of the Teachers who were engaged as the Guest Faculty.

In    the   counter   filed   by    the     State     Government       the exemption granted to the Guest Faculty from clearing the STET was justified on the premise that such test had not been conducted in 
the State for many years. The grant of weightage of additional marks was also defended on the premise that the members of the Guest Faculty had acquired sufficient experience by working as Lecturers / Teachers.

 The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the policy   framed      by   the    State    Government     to    recruitment to    Guest Faculty, the relevant provisions of the Rules, the orders passed in Writ    Petition     Nos.    2743/2006,      387/2007        and   5289/2007      filed    byTeachers appointed as the Guest Faculty and observed:

"31. A reading of orders passed by this Court, as    referred to above, makes it very clear that entry of
 guest   faculty  teachers   was  de-hors   the  regular     selection process. It was limited to few candidates.
All eligible candidates were not allowed to compete for    those posts. The nature of service was contractual.
However, despite knowing terms and conditions of their  appointment, the guest faculty teachers dragged the
State of Haryana into avoidable litigation and on   account of their action, even the process of selection
 of regular teachers was delayed. If at this stage,   relaxation in age, exemption from passing STET and
weightage upto 24 marks towards experience gained as   guest faculty teachers is given to them, it would
  amount to appointing those very candidates in regular  service, who, in the first instance, entered it through
 a selection process which was not regular and open to all. Obviously, it would mean a grave discrimination to
the other more deserving candidates. Most of the guest   faculty teachers have service of more than two years to    their credit, they are sure to get 24 marks at the time   of selection and by that process they are bound to
exclude others who are more meritorious from entering  in service. The grant of 24 marks in the marks obtained  by all the candidates, including the guest faculty teachers, as per criteria, in a fiercely competitive
field with thousands of applicants would virtually rule out non guest faculty candidates. This virtually
amounts to regularization of guest faculty teachers in service, which was deprecated and proscribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), wherein it was held that persons, who got employment
without following a regular procedure and at times  enter through backdoor are not entitled to get
permanence in service."

We   have   heard   Shri   Shish   Pal   Laler,   learned   counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, learned counsel for the Commission and learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and scrutinised the record.
It is not in dispute that the essential qualifications enumerated in the advertisement issued by the Commission were in consonance     with       the   requirement         of     the    Rules   as   amended     vide Notification dated 24.7.2008
In other words, the certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test was an integral
part of the essential qualifications. Rule 17 of the Rules does empower the State Government to relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons but the exercise of power under that rule is hedged with the condition that while granting relaxation, the State Government must record reasons for doing so.
Before the High Court, the State Government did not produce any document to show that it had exercised power under Rule 17    and   passed    a    reasoned      order       for    granting      exemption   to    the
Teachers     engaged      as    the    Guest    Faculty  from   the   requirement   of having qualified STET.                Even before this Court, no such document has been produced. Therefore, the High Court was right in taking the   view that  the essential qualification prescribed under the rules could not have been relaxed by issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued by the Commission.

 Shri    P.P.Rao, learned       senior   counsel      relied   upon     the judgment in K.V.Rajalakshmiah Setty and another vs. State of Mysore and another (1967) 2 SCR 70 to show that one time ad hoc concession
given to teachers could be treated as legitimate and the exercise of power by the Government does not result in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

We have carefully gone through the judgment but do not find any proposition of legality that a qualification prescribed under the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be relaxed simply by issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued by the Commission.

Insofar as the grant of weightage of additional marks is concerned, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that this was an indirect methodology adopted by the State to ensure regularisation of the Guest Faculty Teachers who had earlier failed to    convince   the   High   Court    to       issue   a   mandamus   to   the   State Government to frame a policy for regularisation of their services.

In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the special leave petitions,

all    other     pending   I.As.      are       disposed    of   as    having     become infructuous.



      (Satish K.Yadav)                                       (Phoolan Wati Arora)
        Court Master                                            Court Master


Source : http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%202975510p.txt

Supreme Court of India - Service Matter

Supreme Court of India

Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008

Bench: K Balakrishnan, J Panchal

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 490 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Hemani Malhotra

RESPONDENT:

High Court of Delhi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/2008

BENCH:

CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & J.M. PANCHAL

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.491 OF 2007

Vineeta Goyal  Petitioner

Versus

High Court of Delhi  Respondent

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1. These petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein the common prayer made, is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to direct the respondent i.e. the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to amend notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi to the effect that the petitioner of each petition, is also declared as selected for being recommended for appointment to the vacant post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and prepare a combined merit list on the basis of total marks obtained in written examination as well as proportionate marks of the interview, as if, the vive- voce test was of 75 marks instead of 750 marks or by adding marks obtained in written examination and the marks given to the petitioner in the interview out of 750 marks without cut off.

2. In order to resolve the controversy raised by the petitioners in the petitions it would be advantageous to refer to certain basic facts.

3. The respondent i.e. the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through Registrar General issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for 16 vacant posts to be filled up by direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Detailed information was given in the instructions annexed with the Application Form. The relevant particulars stated in the advertisement were as under:- Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination shall be a two stage selection process comprising the following:

(a) There shall be a written examination comprising of one paper only of 250 marks. It shall have two parts. Part I shall be objective and Part II shall be descriptive. Syllabus for written examination shall comprise General Knowledge, Current Affairs, English Language and topics on Constitution of India, Evidence Act, Limitation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code, Contract Act, Partnership Act, Principles governing Arbitration Law, Specific Relief Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Transfer or Property Act and Negotiable Instrument Act.

(b) Interview/Viva-Voce.

Minimum qualifying marks in the written

examination shall be 55% for General Candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.

4. The petitioner of each petition submitted application in the prescribed form. They were allotted relevant Roll Nos. A written examination was conducted on March 12, 2006 wherein the petitioners appeared. The written examination was of three hours duration and comprised both multiple questions as well as questions with descriptive answers. The respondent High Court did not declare the result of the written examination at all. However, the petitioners received letter dated June 14, 2006 from the respondent asking them to appear for interview on July 12, 2006. Since the result of the written examination conducted by the respondent was not declared, no merit list of the successful candidates who passed the written test was displayed and therefore it is the case of the petitioners that they were not in a position to find out details about the number of candidates who were declared successful in the written examination or for that matter, the number of candidates who had qualified for viva- voce test. According to the petitioners, the Registrar General of Delhi High Court verified testimonials and other documents submitted by them and informed them that the interview had been deferred and that the next date would be intimated in due course. What is averred by the petitioners is that the respondent issued letter dated September 4, 2006 directing the petitioners to appear for interview on September 20, 2006 at 2.30 P.M., but on September 19, 2006 another letter was issued intimating the petitioners that the interview fixed on September 20, 2006 was deferred. It may be mentioned that no next date of interview was intimated to the petitioners. The respondent High Court issued letter dated November 9, 2006 intimating the petitioners that the interview was fixed on November 29, 2006, but again on November 28, 2006, another letter was issued intimating the petitioners that the interview fixed November 29, 2006 was deferred. This last letter of November 28, 2006 specified that the interviews were to take place on December 7, 2006. According to the petitioners on December 7, 2006 five candidates who had cleared written test gathered in the Office of Registrar General of Delhi High Court for appearing at viva- voce test and all the five candidates were collectively called in a Chamber by the Selection Committee comprising five Hon ble Judges of Delhi High Court to be informed that the interview had been postponed. Meanwhile, the Selection Commettee met and resolved that as it was desirable to prescribe minimum marks for the viva-voce the matter be placed before the Full Court. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Court for considering the question whether minimum marks should be prescribed for vive-voce test. The Full Court, in its meeting held on December 13, 2006, resolved as under:-

Considered. It was resolved that for recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service from Bar, the minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce will be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Candidates .

The respondent High Court thereafter issued letter dated January 17, 2007 intimating the petitioners that the vive-voce was fixed on January 23, 2007, but on January 22, 2007 another letter was issued intimating that the interview fixed on January 23, 2007 was postponed. Again by letter dated February 2, 2007 the petitioners were intimated that they were required to appear for interview on February 5, 2007, but even on that day also, no interview could be held.

5. The respondent High Court issued letter dated February 23, 2007 fixing the oral interview on February 27, 2007 and on that day viva- voce test was finally conducted by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the Registrar (Vig.) issued a notice dated April 10, 2007 mentioning that only three candidates were selected and the petitioners had not been selected. This notice was posted on the web-site of Delhi High Court. What is claimed by the petitioners is that the Selection Committee had not drawn final merit list on the basis of combined result of written examination and interview because if the merit list had been drawn on this basis, the petitioners would have obtained fourth or fifth position in the final merit list as only five candidates had qualified for the viva- voce test, and no cut-off marks were prescribed for viva- voce test. The petitioners claim that they filed an application under Right to Information Act before the Public Information Officer of High Court of Delhi on April 28, 2007 seeking information about the result etc. of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination 2006. According to the petitioners the Public Information Officer of the High Court did not supply most of the information demanded by them on the pretext of confidentiality, but in reply dated June 20, 2007 only a part of the information was given to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 490 if 2007 that out of 250 marks for which written test was conducted, she had secured 141 marks and 363 marks out of 750 marks for which viva- voce test, was conducted. The petitioner in Writ Petition Civil No. 491 of 2007 was informed by intimation dated June 20, 2007 that she had obtained 153.50 marks out of 250 marks for which written test was conducted and 316 marks out of 750 marks for which viva- voce test was conducted. What is maintained by the petitioners is that the petitioners have been excluded from being considered for appointment to the post of Higher Judicial Services exclusively on the basis of cut off marks prescribed at the stage of viva- voce test, which is illegal and contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777. According to the petitioners what weightage should be attached to written test and interview depends upon the requirement of service for which selection is being made, but minimum cut off marks could not have been prescribed for viva- voce test, after process for selection had commenced. It is stressed that the oral interview was the only criteria adopted by the respondent for selection to the posts in question which is illegal and therefore the notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by the Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi should be directed to be amended to include names of the petitioners also as selected candidates for appointment to the posts in question. Under the circumstances the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and claimed the reliefs to which reference is made earlier.

6. On service of notice, Mr. Ramesh Chand, Deputy Registrar, Delhi High Court has filed reply affidavit controverting the averments made in the petition. In the reply it is stated that the writ petitions filed against prescription of minimum percentage of marks for qualifying at the viva- voce test, is not maintainable and therefore should be dismissed. It is mentioned in the reply that as far as selection made in the year 2000 was concerned, a candidate was required to get minimum of 55% marks if he belonged to the General Category and 50% marks if he belonged to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category for passing the vive-voce test and as the petitioners who belong to the General Category did not secure the minimum marks stipulated for the vive-voce, but failed, their names were not recommended for appointment. It is mentioned in the reply that another advertisement dated May 19, 2007 was issued for recruitment to the vacant posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service wherein the petitioners had appeared but failed and therefore also they are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petitions. What is pointed out in the reply is that a candidate is required to secure the stipulated minimum marks in the written examination in order to qualify for the next stage i.e. vive-voce test and therefore the respondent was justified in prescribing cut off marks at the vive-voce test. By filing the reply the respondent has demanded dismissal of the petitions.

7. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the petitions.

8. From the record of the case it is evident that the public advertisement was issued by the respondent for direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Services. As per the said advertisement written examination was to be held on March 12, 2006. The selection process was of two stages: stage one was written examination comprising one paper only of 250 marks, whereas stage two included interview/vive-voce. As per the advertisement minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were specified to be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates but no cut off marks were prescribed for vive-voce test at all. The averments made in the petitions which are not effectively controverted by the respondent would indicate that oral interview was postponed by the respondent on six occasions and was finally conducted by the Selection Committee only on February 27, 2007. However, before that date criteria of cut off marks for vive-voce test was introduced by the respondent. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut off marks for vive-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration of the Court is whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. This Court notices that in Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 2008 filed by K.Manjusree against the State of A.P. & Anr. decided on February 15, 2008, the question posed for consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was considered and answered in the following terms:-

The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview.

9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.

10. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree (Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K.Manjusree (Supra) the Court noticed the decisions in (1) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K.Manjusree (Supra) can neither be regarded as Judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the Larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision.

11. At this stage this Court notices that as per the information supplied by the respondent to the petitioners under the provisions of Right to Information Act, the petitioner in Writ Petition Civil No. 490/2007 had secured 142 marks out of 250 prescribed for the written test and 363 marks out of 750 marks in vive-voce test, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 491/2007 had secured 153.50 marks out of 250 marks in the written test and 316 marks out of 750 marks in vive-voce test. There is no manner of doubt that the prescription of 750 marks for vive-voce test is on higher side. This Court further notices that Hon ble Justice Shetty Commission has recommended in its Report that The vive- voce test should be in a thorough and scientific manner and it should be taken anything between 25 to 30 minutes for each candidate. What is recommended by the Commission is that the vive-voce test shall carry 50 marks and there shall be no cut off marks in vive-voce test. This Court notices that in All- India Judges Association and ors. V. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247, subject to the various modifications indicated in the said decision, the other recommendations of the Shetty Commission (supra) were accepted by this Court. It means that prescription of cut off marks at vive-voce test by the respondent was not in accordance with the decision of this Court. It is an admitted position that both the petitioners had cleared written examination and therefore after adding marks obtained by them in the written examination to the marks obtained in the vive-voce test, the result of the petitioners should have been declared. As noticed earlier 16 vacant posts were notified to be filled up and only five candidates had cleared the written test. Therefore, if the marks obtained by the petitioners at vive-voce test had been added to the marks obtained by them in the written test then the names of the petitioners would have found place in the merit list prepared by the respondent. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions filed by the petitioners will have to be accepted in part.

12. For the foregoing reasons both the petitions succeed. The respondent is directed to add the marks obtained by the petitioners in the written examination to the marks obtained by them in the vive-voce test and prepare a combined merit list along with the other selected candidates. The respondent is directed to amend the notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by the Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi, New Delhi and declare the petitioners as selected for being recommended for appointment to the post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service. It is clarified that the petitioners would neither be entitled to, seniority or salary with retrospective effect. Their seniority shall be reckoned from the date of their appointment and salary as allowable be paid from that date only. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each petition. There shall be no order as to cost.

 Source :  http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1357349/

UPTET : टीईटी अब अगले साल

UPTET : टीईटी अब अगले साल

इलाहाबाद (एसएनबी)। शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) इस साल की जगह अब अगले साल के जून-जुलाई माह में कराये जाने की संभावना है। शासन परीक्षा कराने को लेकर गंभीर नहीं है। परीक्षा कराने वाली सरकारी संस्था सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी कार्यालय में भी टीईटी परीक्षा को लेकर सन्नाटा पसरा हुआ है। उधर, टीईटी परीक्षा न होने से प्रदेश के करीब 15 लाख अभ्यर्थी परेशान हैं। वे सचिव परीक्षा नियामक कार्यालय और यूपी बोर्ड मुख्यालय का चक्कर लगा रहे हैं। यूपी बोर्ड ने 2010-11 में टीईटी परीक्षा तैयारी पूरी न होने से टली परीक्षा परीक्षा की तैयारियों में लगेगा तीन से चार माह का समय

करायी थी। इसके बाद विवाद हो गया था। ऐसे में इस बार प्रदेश सरकार किसी भी प्रकार के विवाद से बचना चाहती है। इसलिए वह टीईटी परीक्षा सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी (इलाहाबाद) से कराने का निर्णय लिया है। उधर, सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी के पास अपना एक अदद भवन तक नहीं है। वैसे प्रदेश सरकार नई बिल्डिंग बनाने के लिए बजट आवंटित कर दिया है। कुल मिलाकर संभावना यह है कि अगले साल मार्च-अप्रैल माह में टीईटी परीक्षा के लिए आवेदन पत्र जारी हो सकते हैं और परीक्षा जून और जुलाई में हो सकती है।



फार्म तो दो भरना पड़ेगा

इलाहाबाद। टीईटी परीक्षा के लिए दो फार्म भरना ही पड़ेगा। पहला फार्म प्राथमिक और दूसरा फार्म जूनियर हाईस्कूल के लिए होगा। प्रदेश सरकार फीस में छूट देने पर गंभीरता से विचार कर रही है। इससे मध्यम वर्ग के लाखों अभ्यर्थियों को राहत मिलेगी। बीटीसी-बीएड पास होंगे अभ्यर्थी इलाहाबाद। इस बार टीईटी परीक्षा में अफरा-तफरी का माहौल नहीं रहेगा। जो अभ्यर्थी बीटीसी या बीएड की परीक्षा पास कर चुके हैं,वे ही इसमें शामिल हो सकेंगे। शासन के सूत्रों का कहना है कि पिछली बार बीटीसी-बीएड सहित अन्य लोगों के शामिल होने से अफरा-तफरी फैल गयी थी जिससे यूपी बोर्ड को परीक्षा कराने में कई बार दिक्कतें उठानी पड़ी थी।


News Source : http://rashtriyasahara.samaylive.com (Lucknow , 16.9.12)
******************************
It can be a good news for UPTET 2011 candidates. But can be a bad news for UPTET 2011 failed candidates and for new B Ed Appearing.

UPTET : Merit Result in Gunank System (Filled by Candidates Yesterday)

UPTET : Merit Result in Gunank System (Filled by Candidates Yesterday) 

Merit Result in Gunank System (Filled by Candidates Yesterday) -
http://www.editgrid.com/user/uptet/uptet_%282%29

LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP : राजकीय एलटी पुरुष शिक्षकों की भर्ती का रास्ता खुला

LT Grade Teacher Recruitment UP :

 राजकीय एलटी पुरुष शिक्षकों की भर्ती का रास्ता खुला

वाराणसी। राजकीय विद्यालयों में पुरुष एलटी शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों पर भर्ती का मार्ग प्रशस्त हो गया है। वाराणसी मंडल के चार जिलों के राजकीय विद्यालयों में 40 शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति होनी है। हालांकि इसके बाद भी 21 पद रिक्त रह जाएंगे। कारण कुल 61 पद रिक्त हैं, पर साल भर पहले भेजे गए अधियाचन के मुताबिक ही शासन स्तर से नियुक्ति का आदेश जारी हुआ है।
उत्तर प्रदेश - उत्तराखंड बंटवारे के बाद से लंबित नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया को अब जा कर जीवन मिला है। इसके तहत वाराणसी मंडल के वाराणसी, गाजीपुर, जौनपुर और चंदौली के राजकीय विद्यालयों में रिक्त पदों के लिए अगले सप्ताह संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक (जेडी) स्तर से विज्ञापन निकाला जाएगा। उसके तहत जेडी को ही आवेदन भेजना होगा। यहीं से मेरिट पर नियुक्ति होगी। जेडी ओंकार शुक्ला ने बताया कि मेरिट के लिए तय गुणांक के तहत हाईस्कूल के कु ल पास प्रतिशत गुणे एक बटा 10, इंटर के कुल उत्तीर्ण प्रतिशत गुण दो बटा 10, स्नातक में उत्तीर्ण प्रतिशत गुणे चार बटा 10, बीएड में प्रथम श्रेणी पाने वाले अभ्यर्थी को 12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी वाले को छह अंक, तृतीय श्रेणी वाले को तीन अंक मिलेंगे। इसी तरह जिसने स्नातकोत्तर प्रथम श्रेणी में उत्तीर्ण किया है उसे 15 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी वाले को 10 अंक और तृतीय श्रेणी वाले को पांच अंक मिलेंगे

News Source : Amar Ujala (16.9.12)
*************************
Atleast recruitment process should start in UP, So that unemployed can be engaged in jobs.

UPTET : बीएड परसेंटेज को नहीं मिलेगा अधिक वेटेज

UPTET : बीएड परसेंटेज को नहीं मिलेगा अधिक वेटेज

•हाईस्कूल, इंटर व स्नातक के अंक प्रतिशत होंगे ज्यादा अहम

लखनऊ। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के स्कूलों में शिक्षक की भर्ती इस बार नए फार्मूले पर की जाएगी। इसमें हाईस्कूल, इंटरमीडिएट और स्नातक के अंक प्रतिशत को अधिक वेटेज दिया जाएगा पर बीएड के परसेंटेज को अधिक वेटेज नहीं मिलेगा। बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने नया फार्मूला हाईकोर्ट में भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया है और वहां कहा है कि शिक्षकों की भर्ती इस बार इस नए फार्मूले के आधार पर ही की जाएगी। अभी तक शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए हाईस्कूल, इंटर, स्नातक और बीएड में मिले प्राप्तांकों को जोड़कर सीधे मेरिट बनाकर की जाती रही है।
यूपी में इस बार शिक्षक भर्ती प्रक्रिया के लिए टीईटी पास होने वाला ही पात्र माना गया है। राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) ने यूपी में 31 मार्च 2014 तक शिक्षकों की भर्ती की अनुमति दे दी है। यूपी में इस बार नए फार्मूले के तहत शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए मेरिट बनाई जाएगी। हाईस्कूल के कुल प्रतिशत का 10 अंक, इंटर के कुल प्रतिशत का 20 व स्नातक का 40 अंक और बीएड में प्रथम श्रेणी या उससे ऊपर पर थ्यौरी व प्रैक्टिकल का 12-12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी या इससे ऊपर होने पर 6-6 और तृतीय श्रेणी या उससे ऊपर पर 3-3 अंक जोड़ा जाएगा। यदि हाईस्कूल में किसी अभ्यर्थी को 60 प्रतिशत नंबर मिले हैं तो मेरिट में इसका 10वां हिस्सा 6 अंक जोड़ा जाएगा। इसी तरह इंटर में 60 प्रतिशत नंबर मिले हैं, तो 20 प्रतिशत के हिसाब से 12 अंक और स्नातक में 60 फीसदी नवंबर मिले हैं तो 40 प्रतिशत से गुणा करके 24 अंक दिया देते हुए मेरिट निर्धारित की जाएगी। बीएड का केवल प्रथम श्रेणी होने पर 12 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी होन पर 6 और तृतीय श्रेणी होने पर 3 अंक ही जोड़े जाएंगे। यूपी में इसके पहले सीधे-सीधे प्रतिशत को जोड़कर मेरिट का निर्धारण किया जाता था। इसके चलते पूर्वांचल या फिर पश्चिमी यूपी के काफी संख्या में अभ्यर्थी नौकरी पाने में सफल हो जाते थे, क्योंकि पूर्वांचल और पश्चिमी यूपी के विवि बीएड में थ्यौरी और प्रैक्टिल में अधिक नंबर देते हैं। लखनऊ विवि और अवध विश्वविद्यालय से बीएड करने वालों को अधिक अंक नहीं मिलते हैं। इसलिए नई व्यवस्था लागू की जा रही है।

News Source : http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20120916a_005163014&ileft=129&itop=357&zoomRatio=130&AN=20120916a_005163014 / Amar Ujala (16.9.12)
****************************************
News Analysis : As their is difference in B Ed marks in different,different universities. Similarly difference in Board exam marks and therefore IIT Kanpur oppose it. And after this a formula was prepared where
UP  Board cutoff 65% made equivalent to CBSE 78%. 
INSPIRE Internship gave different cut off for different boards, See - http://www.inspire-dst.gov.in/Internship_Guidelines_Science_Camps.pdf

Percentage Cut-off Marks# of Various State-Boards Result in class XII for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
	2008	2009	2010	2011
UP Board	69.2	72.6	77	77
CBSE	91	92.4	91.8	93.2
ICSE	93	93.3	93.2	93.43

Source : http://www.inspire-dst.gov.in/Inspire-Advertisement.pdf

http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/03/cbse-versus-up-board-acadmic-marks.html

http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2011/12/difference-up-board-candidate-cbse.html

http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/01/up-board-again-defeated-from-cbse-board.html

http://www.inspire-dst.gov.in/Inspire-Advertisement.pdf.pdf 

http://www.inspire-dst.gov.in/Internship_Guidelines_Science_Camps.pdf 

Allahabad Highcourt About Rule of Game / Selection in Service

Allahabad Highcourt About Rule of Game / Selection in Service

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.
Reserved

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28151 of 2012

Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Sharma & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

Connected with

1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28421 of 2012

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Tyagi,Amresh Kr. Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Srivastava,Rakesh Pandey,Sandeep Saxena
2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29019 of 2012

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Energy And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Lalit Kumar,Nirbhay Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.L. Yadav
3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29635 of 2012

Petitioner :- Rautan Singh And Others
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.
Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Jain
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.

4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30028 of 2012

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.It'S Secy. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Kant Dwivedi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar
5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30069 of 2012

Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Pandey And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

6. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30518 of 2012

Petitioner :- Ambikesh Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Santosh Patak,Rahul Ashthana
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
7. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30760 of 2012

Petitioner :- Parveen Kumar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Power & Energy & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Miss Bushra Maryam
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Nripendra Mishra,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

8. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30803 of 2012

Petitioner :- Vikash Kumar Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Naveen Kumar Tripathi,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

9. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31526 of 2012

Petitioner :- Praveen Sharma
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Som Veer
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

10. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31716 of 2012

Petitioner :- Hare Ram Chaudhari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- J.P. Singh,Dhirendra Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

11. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31726 of 2012

Petitioner :- Rajjeesh Kumar Mishra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anurag Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

12. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31774 of 2012

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Santosh Pathak,Rahul Asthana
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

13. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32246 of 2012

Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Verma
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
Petitioner Counsel :- G.S. Prasad,Arvind Kumar Maurya
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.


14. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32672 of 2012

Petitioner :- Kamala Kant & Others
Respondent :- U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. Thru'Managing Director & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anjani Kumar,Sheo Ram Singh
Respondent Counsel :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,S.C.

15. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33007 of 2012

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh & Others
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Porporation Ltd.
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Dwivedi
Respondent Counsel :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastavta,S.C.

16. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33024 of 2012

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Lalit Kumar,Nirbhay Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

17. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33105 of 2012

Petitioner :- Reetesh Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anoop Trivedi,Amit Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

18. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33954 of 2012

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar & Others
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corp. Ltd.& Ano.
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- Shivam Yadav,S.C.

19. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33963 of 2012

Petitioner :- Anurag Dubey & Others
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corp. Ltd.
Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.

20. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34208 of 2012

Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Santosh Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

21. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34872 of 2012

Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra & Others
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission,U.P. Power Corp.Ltd. Lkw.
Petitioner Counsel :- Shiva Kant Srivastava,Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- S.K. Srivastava,S.C.

22. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35268 of 2012

Petitioner :- Sunder Kumar Sharma And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- Sudhakar Upadhyay,Ratnakar Upadhyay
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

23. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35361 of 2012

Petitioner :- Chaturvedi Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- Amul Tyagi,Nipun Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

24. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35391 of 2012

Petitioner :- Madhukar
Respondent :- Electricity Service Commission U.P. P.Corporation
Petitioner Counsel :- Jai Narain
Respondent Counsel :- Sandeep Kumar

25. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36212 of 2012

Petitioner :- Geetam Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Jatashankar Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

26. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36582 of 2012

Petitioner :- Hari Om And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Amresh Kr. Tiwari,S.K. Tyagi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar

27. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36694 of 2012

Petitioner :- Ambrish Kumar Singh And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Gautam Baghel
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava


28. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37246 of 2012

Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Jha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Hari Pratap Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

29. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37535 of 2012

Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pal & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

30. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37900 of 2012

Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

31. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38251 of 2012

Petitioner :- Nand Kishor
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

32. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39731 of 2012

Petitioner :- Raghavendra Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.A Nd Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Gajendra Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

33. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40122 of 2012

Petitioner :- Abhimanyu Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- B.N. Rai,Sumit Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

34. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41853 of 2012

Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Munesh K. Sharma,Ashish Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

35. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42251 of 2012
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Kuldeep Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Amrit Lal Yadav

36. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42539 of 2012

Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- B.N. Rai,Sumit Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C..S.C.,S.K. Srivastava


Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28151 of 2012 has been filed with the prayer to quash the result declared by the Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow as published in the newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara", in so far as it includes the candidates in the select list, who have obtained DOEACC certificates between 28.12.2011 and 31.03.2012 as also the candidates included under the head 'withheld DOEACC'. Further prayer has been made to publish a revised result after excluding such ineligible candidates as are governed by prayer (a) and to publish a revised select list forthwith, and not to give any appointment in pursuance of the said select list.
Civil Misc. Writ petition No.36694 of 2012 has been filed with the prayer questioning the validity of the same result issued by the Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Limited published in the newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" dated 21.05.2012  in so far as it includes the candidates in the select list, who have obtained DOEACC certificates under the head 'withheld DOEACC' with liberty to file such certificate up to 31.07.2012.
The other writ petitions of the bunch contain similar payer, as such entire bunch of writ petitions is being decided by one common judgment and the writ petition No.28151 of 2012 is direct to be treated as leading writ petition, wherein pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged. Even some of the candidates who have been selected and have not been impleaded, are before this Court by means of Impleadment Application, Said application has been allowed by a separate order dated 17.08.2012.
Brief background of the case, as is reflected from the pleadings as set out in the records of writ petition, is that the Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Limited issued An advertisement No. 3-ESC/2011. Said advertisement was published in weekly newspaper 'Rojgar Sangrah' dated 4-10th March, 2011, providing the qualifications as follows:
**1- vfuok;Z vgZrk;sa@'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk% ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn m0iz0 dh gkbZ Ldwy ;k led{k ijh{kk foKku ,oa xf.kr ds lkFk mRrh.kZ bysDVªhf'k;u VªsM esa 2 o"kZ dh vof/k dk vf[ky Hkkjrh;@jkT; O;olkf;d izek.k i=A blds vfrfjDr DOACC }kjk iznRr 80 ?kaVs dk Course on Computer concept (CCC) dk izek.k i= lk{kkRdkj ds le; izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA**
The selection in question was to take place on the basis of written examination and interview. The candidates who qualified the written examination, were to be called for interview. Total 16712 applicants had applied for the post in question; 13576 had appeared in the written examination held on 07.08.2011. In all 6288 candidates qualified in the written examination and they were required to appear in the interview, which was subsequently notified and scheduled to take place with effect from 28.11.2011 to 28.12.2011.
At the time when interview was to take place, various representations had been moved in respect of production of DOEACC certificates, one Raj Kumar Sonkar had preferred writ petition No. 72853 of 2011 before this Court seeking a direction that he be allowed to participate in the interview even in the absence of DOEACC certificate, as he had not been issued formal certificate although he had completed the course, in view of the fact that formal certificates had not been issued by the DOEACC society till that time or that the necessary additional qualification was in the process of acquisition and to give relaxation to the candidates regarding time for submission of DOEACC certificates, since the candidates in sufficient number had appeared for DOEACC, but formal certificates had not been issued by the society concerned. It is reflected that taking cognizance of the same, the President of the Electricity Service Commission addressed a letter to the Director, Personnel (Administration), U.P. Power Corporation Limited, seeking necessary direction. Thereafter the Director Personnel (Administration) prepared a note on the said letter of the President on 26.11.2011 recommending therein that since 2974 posts were to be filled up and the selected candidates had been called for interview on the basis of merit, the selected candidates be allowed to appear in the interview, as denial would give chance of loosing meritorious candidates, and would violate the criteria of selecting best suitable candidates for the post in question, and the result of those candidates, who submit their certificates, be declared and the candidates, who have submitted formal certificate or failed to submit DOEACC certificate may be considered for selection subject to submission of necessary certificates within three months, but the appointment letters will be issued to such candidates only after submission of such certificates. Said note was approved by the Managing Director/Chairman vide letter dated 02.11.2011. The Chairman/Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited proceeded to exercise its authority as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995, by relaxing the requirement of producing DOEACC certificate at the time of interview.
After the said decision had been taken, Press Release was issued on 28.11.2011 and in a number of leading newspapers, including Dainik Jagaran published from Varanasi and Gorakhpur, Amar Ujala, published from Agra and Meerut, Rashtriya Sahara and Times of India published from Lucknow, publication has been made and same was also displayed on the website of the Power Corporation and the Electricity Service Commission. In all 5687 candidates appeared for interview between 28.11.2011 and 28.12.2011, and thereafter final select list was prepared. It has been stated by the Corporation-respondents that the said final select list contained the names of 1509 candidates. This included the candidates, who had submitted DOEACC certificate as also the candidates in regard to whom intimation had been sent by the DOEACC society that they had completed 80 hours Course on Computer Concept. 110 candidates had submitted DOEACC certificate during the course of interview and thereafter 674 submitted DOEACC certificate after facing the interview before 28.12.2011 within a period of three months as provided in the decision already taken. Large number of candidates had not been in a position to submit their certificate, and on account of ban imposed by State Government, result had not been declared, request had come to extend the time, qua them, Chairman, once again on 22.04.2012, extended time to produce certificate. 156 candidates submitted their DOEACC certificate in between 29.03.2012 and 20.05.2012. 59 out of 600 candidates had submitted their DOEACC certificate. It has also been mentioned that relaxation in the period stipulated for submission of DOEACC certificate had been granted in bona fide exercise of authority. Such relaxation has been granted to eligible candidates selected on the basis of merit. Such decision was taken keeping in view the fact that DOEACC certificate was only an additional qualification and not the essential qualification.
The petitioners at this juncture have rushed to this Court complaining therein that the conditions mentioned in the advertisement qua the last cut of date cannot be relaxed, and the candidates, who were not in possession of DOEACC certificate on the date of interview, have to be declared as ineligible. This Court on 31.05.2012 in writ petition No.28151 of 2012 has proceeded to pass order that till the next date of listing no candidate shall be offered appointment, if he has not possessed DOEACC certificate on the date of interview and the details have been asked for. Thereafter counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in leading writ petition, and selected candidates in representative capacity have rushed to this Court, and with the consent of the parties, present matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sidharth Khare Advocate advanced argument by contending that in the present case the terms and conditions of the advertisement were clear and categorical that at the time of interview DOEACC certificate of at least 80 hours Course on Computer Concept was mandatory and the said certificate had to be produced at the time of interview, and in view of this, by no stretch of imagination, the candidates, who were not possessing such certificates at the time of interview, could have been selected by giving them further time to produce DOEACC certificate by 23.03.2012 and then 31.07.2012 by further extending the time for submission of DOEACC certificate, in view of this the rules of selection and appointment/recruitment have been changed while selection process was on, as such writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Sri R.K. Ojha, Advocate, has partly supported the arguments advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, and submits that as far as extension of time up to 31.03.2012 was concerned, the same was rightful exercise, but thereafter extension of time up to 31.07.2012 is not at all subscribed by the rules and the same is arbitrary exercise of power, as for the said extension, no corrigendum, whatsoever, has been issued. All other counsels, representing the petitioners, have adopted the arguments advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate.
Sri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate, appearing with Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, representing the U.P. Power Corporation Limited, submitted that in the present case, Rules in question had been recently amended on 29.01.2011, wherein additional qualification was added for the posts in question requiring the candidates to possess 80 hours course on Computer Concept issued by the DOEACC society, and as various representations had come forward, giving therein reasons for non-production of such certificates at the time of interview, the competent authority, i.e., Chairman / Managing Director of the Power Corporation Limited exercised his authority under Rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995 by extending the period for submission of DOEACC certificate, initially by 31.03.2012 and subsequently extending the same up to 31.07.2012 instead of submitting the same at the time of interview, and said exercise has been undertaken in order to ensure that the candidates who have succeeded in making place for themselves based on merit, do not loose their chance, as selection is based on merit, and as such no interference should be made.
Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A. Chaturvedi, Advocate, submitted that in the present case authority to accord relaxation vests in the authority concerned, as such in the facts of the case, no interference should be made, and selected candidates, who have made place for themselves, opportunity be given to them to serve.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation, which has so emerged in the present case is that the Electricity Service Commission issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up 2974 posts of Technician Grade-II (Apprentice) in U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The advertisement was published in Rozgar Sangrah dated 04-10 March, 2011. The eligibility criteria provided for was High School or equivalent examination with Science and Arithmetic's from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad together with two years experience in All India/State Industrial certificate in electrical trade. In addition to the same, it was also mentioned that at the time of interview the incumbent was required to produce certificate obtained from the DOEACC society of having achieved 80 hours course on Computer Concept. In the advertisement, it was also clearly and categorically mentioned that the DOEACC certificate was required to be produced at the time of interview, in case it is not produced, then in that event the candidature of such candidates shall stand automatically ipso facto cancelled.

Written examination had been held on 07.08.2011. In all 6288 candidates qualified the written examination and they were required to face the interview, which was scheduled to take place between 28.11.2011 and 28.12.2011. Record in question reflects that before the interview could take place, a large number of representations had been moved, and even one writ petition No.72853 of 2011 had been filed by one Raj Kumar Sonkar before this Court, seeking a direction to permit the incumbents to appear in the interview to such candidates also, who had not been issued DOEACC certificate. Keeping in view the large number of representations and realizing this fact that large number of candidates, who had succeeded in making place for themselves on the basis of merit, would be excluded from the zone of consideration at the time of interview in the absence of DOEACC certificates, the respondent-Corporation, referred the matter to the Chairman/Managing Director, and the said authority proceeded to exercise the authority vested in him under rule 45 of the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Sewa Niyamawali 1995, relaxing the requirement of submission of DOEACC certificates at the time of interview. A note in this regard was prepared by the President of the Electricity Service Commission and the same was duly approved by the Chairman/Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited by order dated 26.11.2011 according time up to three months to produce said certificates from the date of interview. Thereafter, Press Release was issued, and it was also placed on the notice board and website of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. In newspapers also requisite publication was made. In all 5687 candidates had appeared in the interview, and the petitioners of the present bunch of writ petitions had also appeared in the interview between 28.11.2011 and 28.12.2011. Thereafter before the final select list had been published, again time provided for had been extended, and the petitioners have found that in the main select list they have failed to make place for themselves, then present writ petitions have been filed, contending therein that the changes affected midway were unjustifiable and by no stretch of imagination said exercise could have been undertaken.
As action taken is under the umbrella of Rule 45, this Court proceeds to consider the impact of Rule 45 of 1995 Rules. Same is extracted below:
"45- lsok 'krkasZ eas f'kfFkyrk& ¼1½ bu fofu;eksa esa fdlh ckr dk vFkZ ifj"kn }kjk fu;qDr rFkk bu fofu;eksa ds fu;af=d fdlh O;fDr ds ekeys esa mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr O;ogkj djus dh ifj"kn dh 'kfDr dks lhfer ;k U;wu djuk ugha gSA
¼2½ tgkW v/;{k dh jk; ls ,slk djuk vko';d izrhr gks] og bu fofu;eksa ls ;k fdlh ;k dqN fofu;eksa ls vkaf'kd NwV nsdj lsok esa dksbZ fu;qfDr dj ldrs gSa rFkk fdlh ,slh fu;qfDr ds fo"k; esa tks iw.kZ:Ik ls bu fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha gqbZ gS og le>k tk;sxk fd fu;qfDr bu fofu;eksa ds varxZr gqbZ gSA"
As far as sub-rule (1) of Rule 45 is concerned, it is clarificatory in nature as it proceeds to mention that nothing contained in this Rule, shall be construed as meaning to limit or minimise the authority of Board in the matter of appointment/control, to take any just and fair decision. Sub-rule (2) inheres authority in the Chairman, if in his opinion it is expedient, he can from amongst such Rules or from any other Rule, by according partial relaxation in the rules appointment can be done and any such appointment, which is not fully in accordance with the Rules, it would be presumed that the appointment has been done in accordance with these Rules.
This much is not in dispute in the present case that the Chairman/Managing Director of the Power Corporation Limited on 26.11.2011 had proceeded to pass an order according relaxation from producing DOEACC certificate at the time of interview, and this much is also reflected that when such decision had been taken, telephonic talk had been made by the DOEACC society, wherein the DOEACC society had informed that interim certificates had been issued and of the existing difficulties. Said period thereafter had been extended, as by that time on account of ban imposed by State Government, result had been kept on hold.
Counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court, in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Alpana, 1994 SCC (L & S) 742; Himai Mehrotra vs. High Court of Delhi, 2008 (7) SCC 11; K. Manjushree vs. State of A.P. 2008 (3) SCC 512, submits that midway interference should not be made by introducing new procedure not substantiated by law. In the case of U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Alpana, the candidate was allowed to appear in written examination, even though by the last cut of date, she was not possessing the degree of Bachelor of Law from a University established by law, and her appearance was not subscribed any Rule or practice. The Apex Court also took note of the fact that many candidates superior in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared. In the case of Himani Mehrotra (supra) and K. Manjushree (supra) introduction of minimum bench mark and introducing of minimum marks for interview in the midstream of the selection process has been held to be illogical. In none of the cases, the authority of relaxation has been there, and on facts, principle laid down therein will not apply.
Once authority to relax is there with the competent authority, then keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances as it existed at the given point of time, the authority concerned has proceeded to exercise the said authority so vested in him and the said exercise is not at all aimed to benefit any particular individual, rather said action is being taken in the direction of not compromising with the merit of the candidates. In view of this, the submissions, which have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners that such period could not have been extended while the selection process was ongoing, cannot be accepted, in the facts of the case on the premises that the Rules of game have been changed, keeping in view the language of the Rule 45 of the Rules, dealing with relaxation, wherein such authority can be exercised, before making appointment. The intent behind conferment of such power in the high functionary, i.e., the Chairman is to remedy the situation, that may arise in myriad conditions, for the reasons spelt out. As per item No. 9 of Advertisement, selection was based on the basis of written examination + interview. Written examination was objective in nature carrying 150 marks for technical subject; 20 marks for general knowledge, 20 marks for reasoning and 10 marks for general Hindi. It was also mentioned therein that in reference of a candidate, who qualify the written examination, for the purposes of interview, separate information shall be given. Date of interview was not made known to the candidates, who were required to undertake the examination, and the same was to be fixed and informed accordingly, subsequently, , after result of written examination had been declared, and said information was limited to only the candidates, who had qualified in the written examination. This much was also mentioned in the advertisement that at the time of interview, DOEACC certificate has to be produced, failing which candidature would stand cancelled. 
In the present case, no change has been made in conducting the written examination on merit. Written examination has been held and based on qualifying test, interview was to take place. Date of interview was not known to any eligible candidate, who were entitled to apply, and in this background, such a situation cannot be conceived of, that many candidates may not have applied as result of examination was not declared before the last date of receipt of applications. Fixing date of interview, was exclusively within the domain of the respondents, and even after fixing of date of interview, the date of interview could have been differed, giving time to the candidates to produce respective DOEACC certificates, as per requirement of Rules and as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the DOEACC certificates were to be produced at the time of interview. Respondents, instead of proceeding to keep the interview on hold, in their wisdom, have chosen to proceed with the interview and to relax the condition of producing DOEACC certificates, at the time of interview, and accorded time to produce the same, within the extended time frame.
Once Rule making authority consciously has conferred such authority of according relaxation on the Chairman of the Commission and the Chairman in his wisdom in bona fide exercise of authority in order to advance the selection based on merit, has proceeded to take decision to accord time for production of such certificates, which in effect is additional qualification, with no impact on the merit status of respective candidate, selection being purely based on merit status of written examination and the interview, then in view this, the argument that the rules of game have been changed during the course of selection process or when it is over, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Minimum required qualification has not at all been relaxed, the criteria of selection based on written examination and interview , has not at all been changed, the only relaxation has been accorded as to produce certificate subsequently.
Once such is the factual situation that the decision was taken to select the best suited candidates instead of making selection of less suited candidates keeping in view that large number of such candidates were not in a position to produce 80 hours course on Computer Concept, and qua whom the DOEACC society had already requested, and as the Rules in question had been amended, thereafter for the first time selection proceeding had been undertaken, then remedial measure has been taken by relaxing the condition of producing certificate at the time of interview. Once authority of relaxation is provided for in the Rules, the said authority can be exercised, but the said exercise has to be undertaken bona fidely, serving the best interest of the department concerned by giving reasons, and here before interview started, decision had been taken to give extra time to produce DOEACC certificate , and reason for extending such time has also been given, so that only the candidates who stand on merit are there and thereafter once again before final result had been declared, said period had been extended. Therefore, the suggestion that the rules of the game has been changed, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as production of DOEACC certificate at the time of interview was an additional requirement and the selection was to be made on the basis of merit based on the marks obtained in the written examination and the interview. In view of this once time period has been extended for producing DOEACC certificate and each one of the petitioners have taken chance and have failed to make place for themselves on merit, then basing their claim on default cannot be subscribed by this Court.
Consequently, in view of what has been discussed, writ petitions are devoid of substance, and they are being dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2012
SRY

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2043353