Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 4

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.

PART -4

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants contended that it is the State which has been empowered to lay down the criteria for selection of teachers in the schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. It is submitted that there being serious allegations against the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011, the High Power Committee decided not to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test although the Teachers Eligibility Test as minimum qualification was retained as per the recommendations of the High Power Committee and the Cabinet decision.

He submits that the decision not to give wieightage to the marks of Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2011 was a conscious decision taken on account of allegations of irregularity, malpractices and illegality in the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011. It is submitted that the decision was taken to deny the benefits of marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test on account of serious allegations. It is submitted that the State had every right to amend the criteria and restoration of earlier criteria by 15th Amendment Rules was well within the powers of the Rule making authority. Learned Additional Advocate General has defended the judgment of learned Single Judge taking the view that there being no cadre of trainee teacher, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was invalid. He submits that the State having realised the mistakes in issuance of advertisement dated 30.11.2011, has corrected the mistake. It is submitted that 16th Amendment Rules thus have been made to provide for a cadre of trainee teachers thereafter fresh process has been initiated. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the Government Order dated 10.4.2012 constituting High Power Committee and the report of the High Power Committee dated 1.5.2012 which have been filed along with the short counter affidavit. It is submitted that the above material has been brought on record in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.2.2013, passed in Special Appeal No. 150 of 2013. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 initiates the process of recruitment for appointment hence, 1981 Rules and other Rules are fully applicable. It is submitted that apart from advertisement dated 30.11.2011, no further advertisement is required. The State is following the guidelines of National Council For Teacher Education dated 11.2.2011. On a request of the State Government, Central Government has extended the date for completing the process of appointment of B.Ed. Teachers up to 31.3.2014. The petitioner appellants' case that they should be selected on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test cannot be accepted. The Cabinet has taken decision after due consideration.

Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the issue as to whether the rules of recruitment can be amended during the continuing process has been referred to larger Bench of the Supreme Court. He has referred to judgment of the apex Court in (2013) 4 SCC 540 Tej Prakash Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court. Sri Agrawal supported the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. He also sought to challenge the findings, which were recorded in favour of the writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge. Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for another intervenor has submitted that after 12th Amendment, Rules 17 and 17 A have not been amended due to which, an anomalous situation has arisen. He also supported the judgment of learned Single Judge. He submitted that State has removed the anomaly. He submitted that appointment on the basis of Teachers Eligibility Test marks cannot be made the sole criteria. Learned Counsel for the appellants in their rejoinder affidavit has reiterated their submission. It has been submitted that there being no material with the State Government to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011, at best the State could prohibit those candidates only against whom there were allegations of irregularity, illegality and malpractices.

Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar Advocate appearing for the National Council For Teacher Education has also been heard.
Issues:
From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on record, following are the issues which arise for consideration in this bunch of appeals.

1.Whether 1981 Rules are applicable for selection of B.Ed. Candidates for imparting six months training for appointment as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools?
2.Whether the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 for selection and appointment as trainee teacher against 72,825 posts in different junior basic schools was invalid on the ground that there was no cadre of trainee teachers in 1981 Rules ?
3.Whether the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council For Teacher Education requiring that State should give weightage to the marks of Teachers Eligibility Test while appointing the teachers were not binding on the State and could have been ignored while making selection and appointment on the post Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools?
4.Whether the State Government's order dated 26.7.2012 to make Teachers Eligibility Test only as a minimum qualification and restoration of the mechanism of giving weightage only on the basis of educational qualification for appointment of teachers as was in force prior to 12th Amendment Rules was in accordance with law?
5. Whether there were valid reasons for the State Government to declare the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as ineffective and to cancel the advertisement?
6.Whether the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (15th Amendment) Rules dated 31.8.2012 and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 were in accordance with law?

7. To what reliefs, the appellants are entitled in these appeals, if any?


Continued.....

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 3

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.

PART -3

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Shailendra, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Seemant Singh and other learned Counsels appearing for the appellants. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri B.P. Singh and Sri Shashank Shekhar advocates have been heard for the respondents.

Submissions:
The arguments which have been led in these appeals can be divided in two separate sets. The first set of arguments have been led by Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Shailendra and Sri Seemant Singh whereas, the second set of arguments have been lead by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate.
In support of Special Appeals including special appeal No. 150 of 2013, it is contended that selection process having begun by advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the criteria of selection could not have been changed by the Government Order dated 26.7.2013 as well as by 15th Amendment Rules and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012. It has been submitted that as per advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 12th Amendment Rules dated 9.11.2011, the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers was to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Teachers Eligibility Test, which criteria could not have been changed. It is submitted that 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012 at best was prospective in nature and could not have been applied on the ongoing selection process. It is submitted that after beginning of process of selection, Rules could not have been changed and any change was prospective in nature. It is further submitted that the State Government having decided to accept the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 as a qualifying examination, its decision not to rely on the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test examination for selection was self contradictory and arbitrary.  

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

When Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 against whom allegedly there were allegations has been decided to be accepted as a "qualifying examination", there was no reason for not adopting the criteria for selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. It is submitted that the State having decided not to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination 2011 and having decided to debar only the individual candidates against whom there were allegations of irregularity and involvement in any criminal offence,  ********************

the other candidates against whom there were no allegations could not be made to suffer. It is submitted that learned Single Judge having accepted that 15th Amendment rules were not applicable in ongoing selection process and having further held that there was no valid reason with the State Government not to proceed with the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the appellants were entitled for grant of relief which was denied by learned Single Judge on a non-existent ground. The view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher hence, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress and the mere fact that the candidates were to be imparted six months' training was not to be treated as making appointment on some different posts of trainee teacher for which according to learned Single Judge there was no cadre. The appointment was contemplated against the post of Masters/Mistress and there was no question of appointment on any different post of Trainee Teachers. The Trainee Teacher was only a nomenclature adopted to define the B.Ed. Teachers who were to be imparted six months' training. Learned Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 651. It is submitted that the entire selection process was entitled to be completed on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and the appellants could not be asked to compete against set of persons, who were not even eligible at the time when advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was issued.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate in support of Special Appeal No. 159 of 2013 contended that 1981 Rules were not attracted, while making selection of the candidates for imparting six months' training. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 contemplated selection of the candidates for imparting six months training, which was to be carried out on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test and the question of appointment and applicability of 1981 Rules shall arise after the candidates complete their training. It is submitted that for selection of B.Ed. candidates for imparting six months training, 1981 Rules and the 15th and 16th Amendment Rules are irrelevant hence, the basis for issuance of the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 declaring the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 ineffective was misconceived. It is submitted that no other reasons have been given by the State Government for cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 except that after the enforcement of 15th Amendment Rules, the advertisement has become ineffective which is a fallacious reason. It is submitted by Sri Khare that the submissions of the petitioners that there was no valid reason with the State not to proceed with the selection dated 30.11.2011 having accepted by the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge having also accepted that 15th Amendment Rules were not applicable for the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher in 1981 Rules, the advertisement is bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the selection and appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress which are cadre posts and for appointment against the said posts the candidates were being selected for imparting six months training, which cannot mean that the candidates were being appointed against any post of Trainee Teacher. It is submitted that there is no necessity of any cadre of trainee teacher and learned Single Judge fell into error in holding the advertisement invalid on the aforesaid ground.

It is further submitted by Sri Khare that the 15th Amendment Rules are unsustainable and are liable to be declared as invalid and inoperative. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed in the writ petition seeking declaration that 15th Amendment rules are invalid. He submits that appointment of candidates having B.Ed. Qualifications was being made on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010. It is submitted that the appointment of B.Ed. Candidate is not being made in accordance with 1981 Rules, rather it was being made under the notification dated 23.8.2010, issued under section 23 of 2009 Act.

It is submitted that the National Council For Teacher Education has issued guidelines dated 11.2.2011, which require the State to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test for selection on the post of Assistant Teachers. The State could not have disregarded the said guidelines and the 15th Amendment Rules which have been made disregarding the binding guidelines of the National Council For Teacher Education, deserves to be declared invalid on this ground alone. It is 

submitted by Sri Khare that Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (6) ADJ 310 has already held the guidelines binding on the State. Sri Khare submits that selection on the basis of quality point marks as per Appendix which has now been restored by 15th Amendment Rules, was a criteria at the time when State has not amended its Rules according to the notification dated 23.8.2010. It is stated that notification dated 23.8.2010 is binding on the State and shall overrides the 1981 Rules. It is submitted that marks of Teachers Eligibility Test for selection of Assistant Teachers cannot be disregarded or ignored in view of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as well as the guidelines dated 11.2.2013.

Continued......

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 2

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.

PART -2

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

(Per Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

All these special appeals filed against the same judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2013 being connected, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The appellants possessing B.Ed. qualification and Teachers Eligibility Test had applied against 72,825 posts of Teachers of primary schools advertised on 30.11.2011, which selection was to take place on the basis of marks obtained in Teachers Eligibility Test, filed the writ petitions challenging the decision of the State Government by which Teachers Eligibility Test was decided to be only a minimum qualification and not the basis of selection. The petitioners had also prayed for completion of selection process on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011. Learned Single Judge although held that neither criteria for selection can be changed after start of selection process nor there was sufficient reason for not proceeding with the selection advertised on 30.11.2011, denied the relief to the petitioner-appellants only on the ground that there being no cadre of 'Trainee Teacher' under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 itself was invalid. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge have come up in these appeals.

Facts:
The background facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions need to be noted for deciding the issues, which have arisen for consideration in this bunch of special appeals. U.P. Basic Education Board constituted under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') is running various junior basic schools and Senior basic schools from classes I to VIII. The criteria and procedure for selection is regulated by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed under the 1972 Act. For achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith, the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 was enacted by Parliament (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Act). The Right of Education having been recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India and the State being responsible to provide free and compulsory education to the children up to 6 to 14 years, Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 
 Under section 23 of 2009 Act the National Council for Teacher Education has been authorised by the Central Government to lay down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. The National Council For Teacher Education vide notification dated 23.8.2010 laid down various qualifications for appointment of teachers.
Passing of Teachers Eligibility Test has been laid down as one of the qualifications, which is to be possessed by a candidate for appointment as a teacher. Under clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, candidates having B.Ed. qualification have also been treated as eligible provided they are imparted six months' special training programme in the elementary education. On 11.2.2011, the National Council For Teacher Education issued guidelines for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test which further provides for giving weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test in the recruitment of teachers.
On 9.11.2011, 1981 Rules were amended by 12th Amendment Rules incorporating passing of Teachers Eligibility Test as one of the minimum qualifications in the 1981 Rules. Rule 14(3) as amended further provides that selection shall be made on the basis of marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test. On 13.11.2011 Board of Highschool and Intermediate Education U.P. conducted the Teachers Eligibility Test examination in which several lacs of candidates participated. On 25.11.2011 result of Teachers Eligibility Test was declared. All the appellants were declared 'pass' in the examination. Inspite of various appointments made in the junior basic schools on the basis of the candidates passing B.T.C. Certificate and Special BTC certificate, still posts of more than a lac teachers are laying vacant in primary schools. By virtue of notification dated 23.8.2010, the candidates who possessed B.Ed. qualification were invited to apply for appointment as Trainee Teacher against 72,825 posts of Teachers for various schools in the State of U.P. The appellants/ writ petitioners submitted their applications in response to advertisement dated 3011.2011. On 31.12.2011 in district Ramabai Nagar, police personnel intercepted a vehicle and seized huge amount of several lacs of rupees and three lists of candidates from persons travelling in the vehicle, allegedly the money was collected to get the candidates passed in Teachers Eligibility Test and to get them appointed as Teachers. A first information report was lodged being case crime No. 675 of 2011 against seven persons. The residence of Director of Education Secondary was also searched on 7.2.2012 where three lists of candidates bearing their roll numbers totalling 260, were found along with an amount of Rs. 400,000 and odd. The Director of Secondary Education was also arrested. A writ petition No. 76039 of 2011 was filed challenging the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 in which this Court on 4.1.2012 stayed the process of selection. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed as infructuous. On 10.4.2012, the State Government constituted a High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of State to look into the allegations relating to Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 and to submit a report. On 1.5.2012, the High Power Committee submitted a report with several recommendations. High Power Committee recommended that Teachers Eligibility Test should be made only a qualifying examination. It was further recommended that those candidates of Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 who are found involved in any irregularity/criminal activity be prohibited from selection and their selection be cancelled. The report of High Power Committee was considered by the Cabinet and a decision was taken by the Cabinet, which has been notified by the Government Order dated 26.7.2012. The recommendations made by the High Power Committee were accepted by the Cabinet. The Cabinet decided to treat the Teachers Eligibility Test only as a minimum qualification and not the basis of selection and further the candidates who were found involved in any irregularity and criminal offences were to be prohibited in the selection.
On 31.8.2012, 15th Amendment Rules were published by which the earlier criteria of selection which was on the basis of marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test as introduced by the 12th Amendments Rules have been substituted by the criteria of 'quality point marks' which was prevalent since before the 12th Amendment Rules. A Government Order dated 31.8.2012 was also issued by the State stating that in view of the 15th Amendment rules, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 have become ineffective hence, the same may be cancelled and the fee be returned to the candidates. U.P. Basic Education Board also issued the order dated 31.8.2012 accordingly. Writ petition No. 39674 of 2012 Akhilesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others was filed in August, 2012 challenging the Government Order dated 26.7.2012 with further prayer of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the process of selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. After the publication of the 15th Amendment Rules, an amendment application has also been filed challenging the 15th Amendment Rules as well as the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. Large number of writ petitions were filed by the other candidates, who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. In December, 2012, the State Government issued 16th Amendment Rules by which definition of Trainee Teacher has been added as Rule 2(u) in 1981 Rules.

During the pendency of the writ petition, a Government Order dated 5.12.2012 was issued by the State Government initiating process of appointment for B.Ed candidates, who have passed Teachers Eligibility Test on the post of trainee teacher. On 7.12.2012, Basic Shiksha Adhikari of various districts issued advertisement inviting applications. On 16.1.2013 all the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed by learned Single Judge. On 29.1.2013 Special Appeal No. 150 of 2013 has been filed challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2013. A Division Bench of this Court on 4.2.2013 suspended the ongoing selection process till 11.2.2013, which interim order was extended from time to time. Other appeals were filed challenging the same judgment dated 16.1.2013. By order dated 23.10.2013 of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Special Appeal 237 (D) of 2013 has been nominated to this Bench. The special appeal No. 237 (D) of 2013 and other connected appeals have been listed for hearing.



Continued.....

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 1

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.

PART -1

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 37 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2013 
`` 
Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pathak And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Singh,G.K. Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 
With 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013 

Appellant :- Navin Srivastava And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Asheesh Mani Tripathi,Shashi Nandan 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,C.B.Yadav 
With 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2013 

Appellant :- Anil Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 
With 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sadanand Mishra,Seemant Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta 
With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sujeet Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Shailendra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2013 

Appellant :- Alok Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastasva 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 
With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 205 of 2013 

Appellant :- Amar Nath Yadav And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Lal,Indra Raj Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.P. Singh,Mrigraj Singh,S. Nadeem Ahmad 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 206 of 2013 

Appellant :- Yajuvendra Singh Chanddel And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kshetresh Chandra Shukla 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2013 

Appellant :- Amiteshwari Dubey And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. Basic Education Lok. And Ors. 
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Dubey 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 244 of 2012 

Appellant :- Dr. Prashant Kumar Dubey 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mishra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 246 of 2013 

Appellant :- Priyanka Bhaskar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Shankar Tripathi,Vinod Shankar Tripathi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Chandra Singh 


With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 248 of 2013 

Appellant :- Uma Shanker Patel And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 249 of 2013 

Appellant :- Devesh Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 261 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B. Pradhan 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 262 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 264 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rama Tripathi And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 





With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 265 of 2013 

Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Yadav And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar,Sanjay Chaturvedi 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 266 of 2013 

Appellant :- Harvendra Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar,Y.S. Bohar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 268 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Srivastava And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.P. Singh,R.A. Akhtar 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 307 of 2013 

Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Pathak 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 333 of 2013 

Appellant :- Satendra Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Mishra,G.K. Mishra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.K. Yadav,Illegible 





With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 200 of 2013 

Appellant :- Rajpal Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Murtuza Ali 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,R.A. Akhtar,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 227 of 2013 

Appellant :- Praveen Kumar 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Irshad Ali 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 228 of 2013 

Appellant :- Mahendra Kumar Verma And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Chaurasia 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 302 of 2013 

Appellant :- Ram Baboo Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 672 of 2013 

Appellant :- Shashi Kumar Yadav And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Rai 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 697 of 2013 

Appellant :- Mohammad Imran And 58 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 698 of 2013 

Appellant :- Sukriti Kumar And 119 Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

With 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1736 of 2013 

Appellant :- Smt. Sarita Mishra 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Laxmi Narain Mishra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar


Continued ......

शिक्षक भर्ती अपने ही कदमों में उलझ रही सरकार

शिक्षक भर्ती अपने ही कदमों में उलझ रही सरकार 

टीईटी पर शिक्षामित्रों ने भी दिए बगावती तेवर के संकेत

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

 News Sabhaar : जागरण ब्यूरो

जागरण ब्यूरो, लखनऊ : शिक्षक भर्ती की नाकामियों का सिलसिला जहां सरकारी कोशिशों को मुंह चिढ़ा रहा है, वहीं इसे लेकर युवा अभ्यर्थियों की नाराजगी प्रदेश सरकार के लिए सियासी संकट की वजह बन सकती है। शिक्षकों की जबर्दस्त कमी को दूर करने के लिए सरकार अपने ही उठाये गए कदमों में उलझती जा रही है। परिषदीय जूनियर हाईस्कूलों में गणित और विज्ञान शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति पर रोक का हाई कोर्ट का फरमान इसका ताजा उदाहरण है। परिषदीय प्राथमिक स्कूलों में 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती को लेकर किन्हीं न किन्हीं वजहों से दो साल से गतिरोध बरकरार है। इन पदों पर भर्ती के लिए पिछले साल दिसंबर में आये तकरीबन 69 लाख आवेदनों के जरिये शुल्क के रूप में प्राप्त हुए 290 करोड़ रुपये बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग दबाये बैठा है। उधर रुपए खर्च कर भी नौकरी से महरूम युवा अभ्यर्थियों की कुंठा आक्रोश में तब्दील हो रही है। लंबे समय से परिषदीय प्राथमिक स्कूलों में पढ़ाई का जुआ अपने कंधों पर उठाये शिक्षामित्रों को स्थायी शिक्षक बनाने का सरकारी मंसूबा भी ध्वस्त हो चला है। सरकार ने 1.7 लाख शिक्षामित्रों को स्थायी शिक्षक बनाने का जो चुनावी वादा किया था, उसमें अब अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) रोड़ा बन गई है। 1हाई कोर्ट की वृहद पीठ द्वारा परिषदीय स्कूलों में शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए टीईटी की अनिवार्यता पर मुहर लगाये जाने के बाद सरकार की पेशानी पर बल पड़ गए हैं। उधर खुद को छला महसूस कर रहे शिक्षामित्रों के संगठन ने भी बगावती तेवर अख्तियार करने के संकेत दिये हैं। शिक्षकों की भर्तियों को लेकर सरकार की असफलता की कहानी माध्यमिक शिक्षा विभाग में भी दोहरायी जा रही है। आलम यह है कि राष्ट्रीय माध्यमिक शिक्षा अभियान के तहत 2009-10 से 2011-12 तक प्रदेश में स्वीकृत 1021 हाईस्कूलों में शिक्षकों की भर्ती नहीं हो पायी है। पिछले साल जुलाई में शुरू हुई एलटी ग्रेड शिक्षकों की भर्ती प्रक्रिया भी अदालती लड़ाई में अटकी हुई है। अशासकीय सहायताप्राप्त महाविद्यालयों में शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति को लेकर सरकार किस कदर गाफिल है, यह अंदाज इस बात से लगाया जा सकता है कि इन कॉलेजों में शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति करने वाला उच्चतर शिक्षा सेवा आयोग ही पिछले सवा साल से गठित नहीं हुआ है।

News Sabhaar: Jagran (17.11.13)

Shiksha Mitra News UP : शिक्षामित्रों को लगा झटका, हड़ताल की चेतावनी

Shiksha Mitra News UP : शिक्षामित्रों को लगा झटका, हड़ताल की चेतावनी

इलाहाबाद : मानदेय में बढ़ोत्तरी की आस लगाए शिक्षामित्रों को एक बार फिर जोर का झटका लगा है। राज्य सरकार की ओर से भेजे गए मानदेय बढ़ोत्तरी संबंधित प्रस्ताव को केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ने ठुकरा दिया है। अब फिलहाल उन्हें पुराना मानदेय सिर्फ 35 सौ रुपये ही मिलेगा। इसको लेकर शिक्षामित्र संघ ने हड़ताल की चेतावनी दी है।

प्रदेश के बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री राम गोविंद चौधरी ने केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्री पल्लम राजू को नौ अक्टूबर को पत्र लिखकर बढ़ती महंगाई हवाला देते हुए शिक्षामित्रों के मानदेय को साढ़े आठ हजार किए जाने की स्वीकृति दिए जाने मांग की। वहीं परियोजना निदेशक अमृता सोनी ने 14 अक्टूबर को प्रमुख सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा को पत्र लिखकर शिक्षामित्रों का मानदेय पांच हजार करने का निर्णय लेने को कहा था।

प्रदेश के शिक्षामित्र दस हजार रुपये मानदेय दिए जाने की मांग कर रहे हैं जबकि शिक्षामित्रों को साढ़े तीन हजार रुपये मानदेय दिया जा रहा है। शिक्षामित्रों की इस मांग के संदर्भ में केंद्र और राज्य सरकार के बीच तीन बार पत्राचार हो चुका है। प्रदेश के बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री ने 26 अक्टूबर 2012, 28 जनवरी 2013 और 15 अक्टूबर 2013 को केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन मंत्रालय को पत्र लिखकर मानदेय बढ़ाए जाने की मांग की। तीनों बार मंत्रालय ने पत्र के जवाब में कहा कि मानदेय बढ़ाना राज्य सरकार का काम है। वहीं प्रदेश सरकार द्वारा सर्व शिक्षा अभियान के तहत तैनात शिक्षामित्रों को मानदेय बढ़ाने की मांग को इस बिना पर खारिज किया गया कि अभियान के तहत भेजे गए प्रस्तावित बजट में केंद्र सरकार ने कटौती कर दी है। राज्य सरकार शिक्षामित्रों को लगातार आश्वासन देती रही कि केंद्र सरकार की ओर से स्वीकृत होते ही मानदेय बढ़ा दिया जाएगा। उत्तर प्रदेश प्राथमिक शिक्षामित्र संघ के प्रदेश पदाधिकारी अनिल कुमार यादव ने बताया कि मानदेय को लेकर राज्य सरकार ने शिक्षामित्रों को भ्रम में रखा है। संघ ने चेतावनी दी है कि अगर 30 नवंबर तक शिक्षामित्रों के मानदेय बढ़ाए जाने संबंधी शासनादेश नहीं जारी किया गया तो शिक्षामित्र हड़ताल शुरू करेंगे


News Sabhaar : Jagran (15 Nov 2013)

धोखाः अखिलेश राज में नहीं हो पाई एक भी भर्ती

धोखाः अखिलेश राज में नहीं हो पाई एक भी भर्ती

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

प्रदेश के युवाओं के साथ तारीख पर तारीख मिलने जैसा खेल हो रहा है।

युवा आवेदन पर आवेदन किए जा रहे हैं, फिर भी शिक्षक नहीं बन पा रहे।
प्रदेश में पहले प्राइमरी स्कूलों में 72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती फंसी और अब जूनियर हाईस्कूलों में 29,334 शिक्षकों की भर्ती फंस गई है।

ऐसे में सवाल उठता है कि इसके लिए आखिर कौन जिम्मेदार है? वे युवा जो नौकरी पाने के लिए उधार लेकर भी फॉर्म भर रहे हैं या फिर वह सिस्टम जिसने यह नीति तैयार की जिसके चलते भर्ती प्रक्रिया का यह हश्र हुआ?

प्रदेश के बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के स्कूलों में पहले से ही शिक्षकों की भारी कमी थी। शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम लागू होने के बाद नए मानक से यह संख्या और बढ़ गई।

उत्तर प्रदेश में शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम लागू होने के बाद नवंबर 2011 में प्राइमरी स्कूलों में 72,825 सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए विज्ञापन निकाला गया।

तत्कालीन बसपा सरकार ने शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए चयन का आधार टीईटी मेरिट रखा।

टीईटी में धांधली होने और विधानसभा चुनाव की घोषणा होने के चलते यह भर्ती प्रक्रिया फंस गई।

प्रदेश में सत्ता बदली तो अखिलेश सरकार ने भी 72,825 सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए विज्ञापन निकाला। इसमें चयन का आधार बदल दिया गया।

टीईटी मेरिट के स्थान पर शैक्षिक मेरिट को भर्ती का आधार रखा गया। यही नहीं, टीईटी की धांधली की जांच भी किसी स्वतंत्र एजेंसी से नहीं कराई गई।

शिक्षक बनने की चाहत में एक-एक अभ्यर्थी ने 30 से 40 जिलों में आवेदन किए। बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग के पास 69 लाख आवेदन आ गए।

बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद ने मेरिट जारी करते हुए 4 फरवरी 2013 से काउंसलिंग शुरू कराई, लेकिन हाईकोर्ट ने इस पर रोक लगा दी। मामला आज भी हाईकोर्ट में विचाराधीन है।

जूनियर हाईस्कूल में गणित व विज्ञान के शिक्षकों के 29,334 पदों के लिए जब विज्ञापन निकाला गया, तो उस समय भी सवाल उठा कि आगे चलकर यह भर्ती भी फंस सकती है।

इसके दो कारण बताए गए। पहला, 72,825 शिक्षकों के मामले में हाईकोर्ट का आदेश आने से पहले भर्ती का विज्ञापन निकाला गया और दूसरा, प्राइमरी स्कूलों के शिक्षकों के विरोध की अनदेखी।

जूनियर हाईस्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापक का पद पदोन्नति से भरा जाता था, पर बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने आधे पदों को सीधी भर्ती और आधे पदों को पदोन्नति से भरने का निर्णय कर लिया। कुछ शिक्षकों को यह नागवार लगा व मामला कोर्ट में गया और भर्ती फंस गई

News Sabhaar : शैलेंद्र श्रीवास्तव / amarujala.com /   15 नवंबर 2013
****************************
However no need to Worry,

For 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment : Final Decision of Court will Arrived on 20th November 2013

For 29334 Junior High School Upper Primary Teacher : Selection Process will be continued But Stay on Appointment Till Final Disposal of Nilam Kumari's Case 
http://joinuptet.blogspot.in/2013/11/29334-upper-primary-teacher-recruitment.html

Allahabad Highcourt : Basic Teacher Pay Related Matter

Allahabad Highcourt : Basic Teacher Pay Related Matter

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54574 of 2013

Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Nath Chaturvedi And 47 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K.Singh,D.K.Singh,Manoj Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Shere Ali

Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners are aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying them higher salary which has been found due and admissible by the Competent Authority. In this regard the petitioners have submitted a representation to the Finance & Accounts Officer in the Office of the Basic Education at Maharajganj on 26.8.2013.
Considering the facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Finance & Accounts Officer in the Office of the Basic Education at Maharajganj to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner and in case they are found eligible to the higher salary, the same should be paid in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merits.
Order Date :- 7.10.2013
pk


http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2848340

29334 Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP, Allahabad Highcourt : ARTS and Promotion Category Candidates put their petition in Court - that they are in loss if selection happens for 29334 Science/Maths Teacher only

29334 Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP, Allahabad Highcourt : ARTS and Promotion Category Candidates put their petition in Court - that they are in loss if selection happens for 29334 Science/Maths Teacher only

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

कर्मचारीयों की हड़ताल के चलते सचिव महोदय अदालत द्वारा माँगा गया डेटा नहीं जुटा पाये और बताया गया कि हड़ताल के ख़त्म होते ही सम्बंधित डेटा व दस्तावेज उपलब्ध करा दिए जायेंगे 

यह भी बताया गया कि भर्ती प्रक्रिया के अंतिम दौर अर्थात नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में समय लगेगा । 

प्रार्थना को देखते हुए  सुनवाई की अगली तिथि २६ नवम्बर को निर्धारित की जाती है 
अगली तिथी को उपरोक्त दोनो अधिकारी उपस्थित रहेंगे और जैसा बताया गया है कोई नियुक्ति नहीं होगी , हालाँकि नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया जारी रखी जा सकती है 



See Case
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52521 of 2013

Petitioner :- Neelam Kumari Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshetresh Chnadra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav

Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Pursuant to order datd 7.11.2013, Sri Nitishwar Kumar, Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. and Sri Sanjay Sinha, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board are present. They have made their submissions and are also represented by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri B.P. Singh and Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocates. Learned counsels appearing for different District Basic Education Officers of different Districts are also present. On account of strike of the Government employees, they have expressed their inability to produce the relevant record and the data which was sought for from them in the previous orders. It has been stated by them that as soon as strike is over they would place before the court the relevant data and the material as required and would also answer the questions posed to them in the previous orders. It has also been stated that at present exercise for selection of the Assistant Teachers in Science & Mathematics stream for the Junior High Schools is in progress and it will take time to finalize and make appointments. 
As prayed list this case on 26.11.2013. 
On the said date both the above described Officers shall again remain present before the court along with the relevant material. It goes without saying, on the statement made by them, no appointments in pursuance to the advertisements issued would be made by them. The selection process, however shall continue.
Order Date :- 13.11.2013
pk
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2915891

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


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52521 of 2013
Petitioner :- Neelam Kumari Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshetresh Chnadra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50787 of 2013
Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Singh And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Upadhyay, Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Sayed Nadeem Ahmad

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55925 of 2013
Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Ojha,Shailesh Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58520 of 2013
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar & 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Kant Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.P. Singh
And
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58712 of 2013
Petitioner :- Jayant Kumar Singh And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Aditya,Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal

Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
On 23.10.2013 the following order was passed :
These three writ petitions have challenged the Government Order dated 11.7.2013, issued by the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By the said order the Government has taken a decision to fill up 29,334 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers of Science and Mathematics stream in Junior High Schools, managed and controlled by the Basic Education Board. The said Government Order further provides the procedure for making the selection to the said posts.
Writ Petition No.52521 of 2013 has been filed by a prospective candidate, who claims to possess the educational and other eligibility qualifications for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School in the Arts stream. According to learned counsel for the petitioner there is no separate gradation or cadre with regard to the Assistant Teachers of Junior High Schools of the Art or Science or Mathematics stream, the cadre is one and the same and, therefore, if the selections is made only for Science and Mathematics stream, the candidates who are eligible for other stream are put to loss. The following questions have been framed by learned counsel for the petitioner for consideration in the said writ petition : 
(1) Whether the Government Order dated 11.7.2013 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is against the Rules 15 and 17-A of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 ? 
(2) Whether the State Govt. has committed illegality in issuing direction to Basic Education Authorities for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Upper Primary School (Class 6 to 8) only for Science and Maths teaching subjects ignoring other teaching subjects while the Govt. has taken examination of Teachers Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) for all kind of teaching subjects candidates ? 
Writ Petition Nos.50787 and 55925 of 2013 have been filed by the Assistant Teachers of Primary Institutions who claim to possess the qualifications and eligibility for being promoted as Assistant Teachers in Junior High Schools in Science and Mathematics stream. According to the petitioners the amendment in the Rules by providing for filling up 50% vacancies of Science and Mathematics stream by direct recruitment is detrimental to their interest inasmuch as their chance for promotion are drastically reduced. It is further their case that in so far as Assistant Teachers of Junior High Schools of the stream other than Science and Mathematics is concerned that is primarily Art stream the posts are to be filled up 100% by promotion and, therefore, Teachers in the same cadre as that of the petitioners working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Institutions but possessing qualifications for promotion as Assistant Teachers in Junior High Schools, Art stream would have better chance of promotion. 
It is further case of the petitioners that although the relevant Rules provide for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Junior High Schools in Science and Mathematics stream by direct recruitment but the same is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and it is only when the Government comes to conclusion that either there is non-availability of Assistant Teachers in Primary Institutions for being promoted to the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Hgh Schools in Science and Mathematics stream and there is need for such Teachers then open selection can be made to fill up such posts. He further submits that apparently no such exercise or decision has been undertaken by the State before amending the Rules for filling up 50% posts of Assistant Teachers of Junior High Schools in Science and Mathematics stream by direct recruitment.
Another submission raised by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions is that inclusion of the qualification of B.Ed. Degree is not in accordance to law inasmuch as the relevant Rules of 1981 applicable to the Junior High Schools, managed and controlled by the Basic Education Board does not provide B.Ed. as a necessary qualification as such by the Government Order such qualification cannot be inserted. This argument at the behest of the petitioners, who are already working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, cannot be sustained. However, a candidate who may be interested in applying against the advertisement may raise such a point provided he fulfills all other qualifications other than B.Ed. As such this argument does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners in the present two writ petitions.
Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Board and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents may obtain complete instructions in the matter in the light of facts and grounds recorded above so that this matter may be finally thrashed out without causing any further interference in the selection process, which has already commenced.
In case instructions are not received by the next date from the Board and State Government, court will be left with no other option but to proceed to pass appropriate orders in the light of the submissions advanced.
Put up this case in the additional cause list on 30.10.2013.
Copy of the order may be provided to Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Board and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents free of cost within 24 hours for necessary compliance.
The matter had been fixed for 30.10.2013 but due to paucity of time could not be taken up. Today it has been taken up after eight days of date fixed in the order. Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Board have prayed for further time to file counter affidavits.
It appears that the State Government as also the Basic Education Board are not realizing the seriousness of the matter as in the absence of any appropriate instructions or counter affidavits relying upon the arguments raised by the petitioners the entire selection process of 29334 Assistant Teachers of Science and Mathematics Stream for the Junior High Schools in the State of U.P. may fall in jeopardy. As a last opportunity this matter is being fixed for Wednesday, 13.11.2013.
List in the additional cause list on 13.11.2013.
On the said date the Principal Secretary / Secretary (Basic) as also the Secretary of the U.P. Basic Education Board shall remain present before this court to assist the court in adjudication of the matter. It would be open to them to file their counter affidavits on or before the said date.
Copy of the order may be provided to Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Board free of cost within 24 hours for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.11.2013
pk
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2903582