News - -
भारत को एडवांस्ड हथियार
प्रिडेटर गार्डियन ड्रोन्स दिए गए तो साउथ एशिया में हालात बिगड़ेंगे: PAK
पाकिस्तान की चिंता प्रिडेटर गार्डियन ड्रोन्स को लेकर है। अमेरिका भारत को इस तरह के 22 ड्रोन्स देने जा रहा है
भारत को एडवांस्ड हथियार दिए गए तो साउथ एशिया में हालात बिगड़ेंगे: PAK
Jul 06,2017

नई दिल्ली/इस्लामाबाद. पाकिस्तान ने कहा है कि अगर भारत को लेटेस्ट टेक्नोलॉजी वाले एडवांस्ड हथियारों की सप्लाई हुई तो इससे साउथ एशिया रीजन में स्ट्रैटेजिक बैलेंस बिगड़ेगा और हालात खराब होंगे। बता दें कि अमेरिका ने भारत को प्रिडेटर गार्डियन ड्रोन्स देने का फैसला किया है। इसके बाद से पाकिस्तान परेशान है। ये ड्रोन्स बेहद खतरनाक और एडवांस्ड हैं। अमेरिका ने पाकिस्तान में तालिबान के खिलाफ ज्यादातर हमले इन्हीं ड्रोन्स के जरिए किए हैं। और क्या कहा पाकिस्तान ने...
- गुरुवार को पाकिस्तान फॉरेन मिनिस्ट्री की वीकली प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस के दौरान स्पोक्सपर्सन नफीस जकारिया ने कहा- इंटरनेशनल फोरम्स पर पाकिस्तान अपनी चिंताएं बताना जारी रखेगा।
- बता दें कि नरेंद्र मोदी पिछले महीने यूएस विजिट पर गए थे। इस दौरान अमेरिका और भारत के बीच प्रिडेटर गार्डियन ड्रोन पर डील साइन हुई थी। पाकिस्तान ने तब भी इसे अपने लिए खतरनाक बताया था। जकारिया ने कहा- हम हर कीमत पर अपने देश की हिफाजत करेंगे।
- दरअसल, पाकिस्तान को लगता है कि इन ड्रोन्स को हासिल करने के बाद भारत बिना अपनी आर्मी भेजे पाकिस्तान में आतंकी ठिकानों को तबाह कर सकता है। अमेरिका ने अफगानिस्तान की सरजमीं से पाकिस्तान में कई तालिबानी ठिकानों को तबाह कर दिया था। उसके हमले अब भी होते हैं।
अमेरिका के आरोपों से इनकार
- अमेरिका पाकिस्तान पर हक्कानी नेटवर्क के खिलाफ कार्रवाई करने का दबाव डालता रहा है। ये नेटवर्क पाकिस्तान में मौजूद है और अकसर अफगानिस्तान में आतंकी हमले करता रहा है। अमेरिका कई बार पाकिस्तान पर इसे खत्म करने को कह चुका है।
- अमेरिका के आरोपों के बारे में पूछे गए एक सवाल पर जकारिया ने कहा- हक्कानी नेटवर्क पाकिस्तान में मौजूद नहीं हैं। इस बारे में जानबूझकर हमें बदनाम किया जा रहा है। इस बात के सबूत हैं कि हक्कानी नेटवर्क के ज्यादातर कमांडर्स अफगानिस्तान में ही मारे गए हैं। ये नेटवर्क वहीं से ऑपरेट करता है।
पाकिस्तान में आतंकी संगठन नहीं
- जकारिया ने दावा किया कि तालिबान, जमात-उल-अहरार, आईएस और अल- कायदा जैसे आतंकी संगठन पाकिस्तान में मौजूद नहीं हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि हाल ही में अमेरिकी सीनेटर जॉन मैक्केन पाकिस्तान आए थे और उनसे अफगानिस्तान के मुद्दों पर बातचीत हुई थी।
- पाकिस्तान फॉरेन मिनिस्ट्री के स्पोक्सपर्सन ने कहा कि भारत अफगानिस्तान में अमन बहाली नहीं चाहता।
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
तमाम बेसिक शिक्षकों के ट्रांसफर का समाधान हेतु कोर्ट का निर्णय देखें , कैंसर पीड़ित शिक्षिका को विशेष राहत (3 वर्ष की ट्रांसफर हेतु मिनिमम अवधि से राहत )
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 333 of 2017
Petitioner :- Mohd. Arif And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.Of Up Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Kanhaya Pal,Pooja Pal,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Saurabh Shankar Srivastav,Surendra Pratap Singh,Suresh Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Akhilesh Chandra Srivasta,Manish Mishra,Mayankar Singh,Shobhit Kant,U.N. Mishra,Upendra Nath Mishra
AND
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 795 of 2017
Petitioner :- Faheem Beg
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunesh Singh Pawar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Akhilesh Ch Srivastava,Akhilesh Chandra Srivasta,Anupam Mehrotra,Manish Mishra,Narendra Kumar Pandey,Narendra Singh Chauhan,Sameer Kalia,U.N. Mishra,Upendra Nath Mishra
AND
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 489 of 2017
Petitioner :- Manju Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Edu.Basic Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,U.N. Mishra
AND
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4677 of 2014
Petitioner :- Smt. Rajan & 29 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Krishan Kanhaya Pal,Pooja Pal,Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra,Suresh Chandra
AND
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2857 of 2017
Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Sharma,Devendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
AND
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2945 of 2017
Petitioner :- Smt Neelam Yadau
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
As common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all the above writ petitions have been heard together.
In all these writ petitions, various orders have been challenged by which hundred of teachers were transferred by the Board. These transfers were inter district transfers. It is pertinent to mention that the cadre of teachers under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 is a district level cadre and inter district transfers are permissible only in terms of Rule 21 with the approval of the Board as an exception.
The writ petitions have been filed by those who have not been transferred but who feel aggrieved by the same on a belief that by such transfers their promotions to the post of Head Master, for which they claim to be eligible would be adversely affected. On being confronted, Shri Karunesh Pawar and others appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions submit that most of these transferees were officiating on the post of Head Master in their original districts, therefore, consequent to these transfers, they would continue as Head Masters in the transferred district also i.e. Lucknow, meaning thereby corresponding number of promotional posts of Head Master would be occupied by them, thereby prejudicing the claim of the petitioners for being considered for promotion against such posts which are substantively vacant in the district of Lucknow.
Shri Anupam Mehrotra and other counsels appearing for the interveners and affected persons submit that in view of rule 22 of the Rules known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, on such inter district transfers, the transferees would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferred district, therefore, officiation on the post of Head Master being based on seniority there is no way, their clients would be entitled to officiate as Head Master unless they are the senior most in the respective schools.
This Court passed an interim order dated 25.01.2017 in the connected writ petition bearing no. Writ Petition No. 333 (S/S) of 2017 in the following terms:-
" Subject matter of this bunch of writ petitions relates to inter-district transfer of the teachers working in Basic Schools. On 03.01.2017, an order has been passed by the State Government effecting certain inter-district transfers of the teachers on the eve of notification for ensuing elections for Legislative Assembly in the State of U.P. issued by the Election Commission.
The posts of teachers in primary schools as well as Junior High Schools form district-wise cadre and in service jurisprudence transfer of a member of a particular cadre is normally not permissible to another cadre unless anything contrary to the said legal position exists in the rules governing conditions of the service of members of such a cadre. The conditions of service of the teachers in these institutions are governed by the statutory rules, namely, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, which have been framed under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 21 as it exits today is quoted herein below:-
"21. Procedure for transfer.- There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban area or vice versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board shall be necessary."
According to the aforequoted Rule 21, inter-district transfer can be effected only on the request of the teacher concerned or with his consent and not otherwise, that too, only with the approval of the U.P. Basic Education Board.
The rule making authority while framing Rule 21 was conscious of the fact that transfer of any member of one cadre to the other is legally not permissible and as such has consciously provided that the same can be effected only in case a request is made by the teacher or he gives his consent for such transfer. The provision further states that any such transfer can be effected only with the approval of the U.P. Basic Education Board.
The order dated 03.01.2017, passed by the State Government, however, does not disclose that prior to passing of the said order, any approval of the U.P. Basic Education Board was obtained.
For the purpose of effecting transfer of teachers working in Basic Schools run and managed by the Basic Education Board, the State Government has issued an order on 23.06.2016 laying down in detail the policy to be followed for the purpose of effecting inter-district transfers. The said Government Order is, in fact, referable to Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 which empowers the State Government to give directions to be carried out by the Basic Education Board from time to time for efficient administration of the said Act.
The Government Order dated 23.06.2016 permits the transfer only on application to be moved on-line giving certain details as required in Clause 3(2) of the said Government Order. The Government Order further prescribes that on moving application on-line with certain details which are relevant for the purpose of seeking an effective transfer, the matter shall be considered by the District Basic Education Officer and Basic Education Board in a transparent manner. A perusal of the order dated 03.01.2017 clearly reveals that the same is not only in violation of statutory Rule 21 of the Service Rules but is also in derogation of Government Order dated 23.06.2016, which too, would have statutory force being referable to Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.
Any government policy enunciated either by promulgating any Statue or Statutory Rules or even by issuing a simple executive order binds every one including the government which promulgates the same. Prima-facie, it appears that while passing the order dated 03.01.207, the State Government has acted in complete derogation of the policy which was framed by it and by which government also stands bound.
Let the aforesaid issues be explained by some responsible officer of the State Government in the department of Basic Education, not below the rank of Special Secretary to be nominated by the Principal Secretary/Secretary, who shall be present before the Court for its assistance on the next date of listing.
List/put up this case on 27.01.2017.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel will communicate this order to the authorities concerned without waiting for its certified copy. Learned Chief Standing Counsel is also requested to assist the court in this case.
When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Upendra Nath Misra shall also be shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent. "
Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 27.01.2017 whereupon this Court passed the following order which reads as under:-
"Pursuant to order dated 25.01.2017, Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education is present. He has stated that after issuance of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the State Government has issued another Government Order dated 19.12.2016 providing therein that in terms of the earlier transfer policy embodied in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the remaining on-line application forms submitted by the teachers seeking their inter-district transfers can be considered in terms of the earlier policy itself. The Government Order dated 19.12.2016 is taken on record.
However, on a query being put to him as to whether before passing the transfer order dated 03.01.2017 whereby several inter-district transfers of the teachers has been effected, prior approval of the Basic Education Board, as is required to be taken under Rule 21 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, was taken or not, it has been stated by Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary that no such approval was sought before passing the order dated 03.01.2017.
Such a course adopted by the State Government while passing the transfer order on 03.01.2017 is not only against the statutory provisions contained in Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules but is also in violation of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016.
It is noticeable that the Government Order dated 19.12.2016 permitted consideration of remaining on-line applications only in terms of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 and as such without seeking approval of the Basic Education Board, no such inter-district transfers could have been effected.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is not only that only one order on 03.01.2017 effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers was passed but there are several such orders.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Special Secretary present today has stated that in fact on 03.01.2017 two orders effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers have been passed by the State Government. He has also stated that these two orders passed on 03.01.2017 contain lists of teachers most of whom had submitted off-line applications, which was impermissible under the Rules and the Government Order.
Such a procedure of effecting inter-district transfer is neither contemplated in Rule 21 of the Rules nor in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016.
This bunch of writ petitions contain averments that while effecting inter-district transfers of teachers, the Basic Education Board and the respective Basic Shiksha Adhikaris have not followed the priority as contemplated in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. There appears to be large scale discrepancies in the inter-district transfers made by the respondents.
Any statute or statutory Rules or even a Government Policy is binding on the Government as much as it is binding on others. The facts of this case clearly establish that State Government has acted against its own norms which are embodied in the Service Rules, 1981 and the Government order dated 23.06.2016. Further, despite prescribing that only on-line applications seeking inter-district transfer shall be considered, the State Government while passing at least two orders on 03.01.2017 has considered off-line applications of teachers and passed orders thereon, which has not only resulted in making the process adopted by the Government non-transparent but has also deprived several teachers of the opportunity of making applications. Such a course adopted by the State Government is, thus, prima facie, arbitrary and also suffers from the vice of malice in law as prima facie there is no justification for deviation from the prescribed norms.
Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, operation and implementation of these two orders said to have been issued by the State Government on 03.01.2017 effecting inter-district transfers of the teachers in Primary and Junior High Schools in the State of U.P. are hereby stayed.
The teachers who have been transferred in terms of the said orders will not be allowed to work and discharge their duties at the places of their new posting. They shall, however, be permitted to discharge their duties in the schools where they have been working prior to passing of the orders on 03.01.2017 by the State Government.
Let counter affidavit be filed in these matters by the respondents within a period of two weeks. One week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period showing the name of Sri Upendra Nath Mishra as counsel for the respondent.
It will be open to the teachers who are affected by the order passed on 03.01.2017 by the State Government to seek their intervention in this case. "
On a perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is found that Shri D.P. Singh, Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education, who had appeared before this Court admitted to the fact that the transfers had been effected without seeking the approval of the Board as was mandatory under rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, and the Government order dated 23.06.2016 which was applicable in view of the subsequent Government Order dated 19.12.2016. Certain other discrepancies were also noted by this Court.
The fact of the matter is that the petitioners herein have not been transferred nor they are seeking transfer, they are concerned with their entitlement for being considered for promotion to the post of Head Master.
As regards, the contention of Shri Pawar that these transfers prejudice the rights of the petitioners to be considered for the promotion against the post of Head Master for the reason already noted hereinabove, and, on a bare perusal of Rule 22 (3) there is no doubt that such transferees would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of teachers of the corresponding class or category pertaining to the local area to which he has been transferred, as on the date orders for transfer are passed. If it is so, unless off course such transferees are the only personnel available in the institution, they would not hold the post of Head Master on officiating basis and such situations would be rare.
First and foremost, it is the validity of such transfers which is to be seen, as, if the transfers are held to be invalid then the apprehension of the petitioners regarding prejudice to their right of consideration for promotion would be rendered imaginary, therefore, once in the order of this Court dated 27.01.2016 certain discrepancies with regard to the inter district transfers have been noticed and a statement had also been made by the Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education in this regard, which has been recorded therein, thus, considering the fact that now there is a change at the helm of officers and any apprehension in the mind of petitioners about lack of bonafide would now be allayed, therefore, considering the cumulative effect of all the factors, the ends of justice would be met if the State Government itself revisits the transfers already been made by the impugned orders, keeping in mind the observations of this Court and the recitals contained in the interim order dated 27.01.2016, subject to a right of representation to the petitioners as also the interveners and those seeking impleadment and the like who may submit such representation within 15 days of receipt of copy of this order and the State Government takes a decision as regards their validity considering such representation with expedition.
While taking a decision as aforesaid, the Government shall strictly adhere to the observations made by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 55 of 2017 vide order dated 20.02.2017 that transfers made offline are not in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It shall also keep in mind that the cadre of Assistant Teacher is a district level cadre and inter district transfer is an exceptional measure not to be made routinely except in terms of Rule 21 of 1981 Rules and also as to whether such transfers made were justified and legal.
Apart from the above, based on the decision to be taken as aforesaid, claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Head Master/ Assistant Teacher (Upper Primary) shall also be considered accordingly dependent upon the decision as aforesaid, with expedition.
As far as the salary payable to the transferred employees since January, 2017 is concerned, the Court is of the view that if they had not been permitted to work at the place of their original posting or had already been relieved or were prevented by other justifiable reasons from working, they would be entitled to arrears of salary as per Rules since January, 2017 with continuity in service and a decision in this regard shall be taken as aforesaid.
The decision as regards the validity of the impugned transfers shall be taken by the State Government within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the claim of the petitioners for promotion herein shall be considered accordingly within next three months.
In the meantime, all the transferees shall be allowed to join at the transferred place with the condition that none of the transferees shall officiate on the post of Head Master, unless off course they are the senior most and even if they are the senior most in the institution, it may be permitted only as a temporary arrangements subject to the post in question being filled substantively by promotion etc. under the relevant Rules.
All the interveners/impleadment applications are allowed with the right of hearing which has already been extended to them.
As far as intervention application No. 45919 of 2017 in writ petition No. 333 (SS) 2017 is concerned, the counsel appearing on behalf of Sandhya Kumari Tiwari, applicant, whose intervention is hereby allowed, submits that she has been suffering from cancer and it is on this request that she had been transferred from Shravasti to Unnao as she is undergoing treatment at KGMC Lucknow. Although he says that, strictly speaking, the tenure of three years of service prescribed in the Government Order was not fulfilled but then in the exceptional circumstances this step was taken that too online through Integrated Grievance Redressal System. In view of the aforesaid, considering the extreme hardship, it is clarified to the extent that this order shall not come in the way of the joining of the applicant Sandhya Kumari Tiwari at the transferred place at Unnao as also her continuance at the said place. She shall be paid salary for the due period. Her case shall not be open to reconsideration.
All writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 3.5.2017
Ashish /Rahul
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
पति का स्थानांतरण अन्यस्थ जिले में करने से , पति पत्नी गाइडलाइंस का हवाला देते हुए कोर्ट से राहत मांगी , कोर्ट ने 6 हफ्ते में पति के विभाग को निर्णय लेने को कहा , पत्नी बेसिक शिक्षिका
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22272 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ramakant Shahi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is a pharmacist at P.H.C. Shahabganj, Varanasi. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred three times in a short span of time on 10.05.2016, 30.08.2016 and 05.09.2016 whereby now he has been transferred from Mau to Kannauj. It is further stated that the petitioner's wife is an Assistant Teacher in Mau. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the Government Policy wherein it is provided that the husband and wife should be posted at the same place. No other submission has been made.
It is a trite law that transfer is a condition of service and in case there is violation of circular/Government order or transfer policy, it does not confer any vested right with the employee. The appropriate remedy is to approach the higher authorities to ventilate his grievance. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 and, Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. & others, (2009) 15 SCC 178.
From the record, it appears that the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2017 is pending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the respondent no. 2 i.e. Director, Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, U.P. to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Order Date :- 22.5.2017
Sumit S
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
UP SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
पति पत्नी आधार पर सरकारी शिक्षक ने पत्नी के कार्यस्थल दिल्ली के नजदीक ट्रांसफर माँगा , कोर्ट ने शिक्षा विभाग को 4 हफ्ते में निर्णय लेने को कहा
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20844 of 2017
Petitioner :- Dr. Pankaj Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Jeet Yeadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Petitioner is an Assistant Professor (English) in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Government Degree College, Bhadohi, District- Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi). Transfer Policy has been promulgated by the State government on 03.05.2017 which according to the petitioner covers his case. In accordance with the provisions of terms of the policy, the petitioner has made an application on the prescribed format seeking transfer to a place nearby where his wife is working as a teacher in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi-42.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Clause 1 (D) of the policy the husband and wife as far as possible entitled to be posted at the same place. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made an application on 30th March, 2017 but till date no decision has been taken thereon.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and the terms of the policy within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.5.2017
AKT
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
याची बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में कार्यरत शिक्षक ने पत्नी के प्राइवेट सरकारी सहायता प्राप्त स्कूल के नजदीक अंतर जनपदीय ट्रांसफर माँगा ,
कोर्ट ने सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को सक्षम अधिकारी के पास केस भेजना को कहा
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16239 of 2017
Petitioner :- Pushpraj Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Kinkar Singh,Ajay Subrat Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.D.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 and Shri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.�
The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.6.2016 in the Primary School Dilawaldeeh Pachpedwa Balrampur. The said Institution is run and maintained by the U.P. Basic Education Board. The petitioner's wife namely, Smt. Renu Devi is working as Lecturer in Hindi in Janta Inter College Paharpur, Sirathu, Kaushambi. The said Institution is a government aided but privately managed and does not hold the transferable post. The distance between Kaushambi and Balrampur is 500 Km. and above.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that his claim may be considered on sympathetic ground of placing the husband and wife together at one place. Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 provides that inter district transfer is possible only upon the request of the particular teacher.�
Since the wife of the petitioner is at Kaushambi, it would be appropriate to direct Secretary, Basic Education Board U.P. at Allahabad to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, if it is found that the Secretary, Basic Education Board is not the competent authority, he shall forward the same to consider the claim of the petitioner before appropriate authority.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017
Ashish Tripathi
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
याची शिक्षक की जगह और कोई बाहरी व्यक्ति पढ़ा रहा था , हेड मास्टर पर गाज गिरी , याची शिक्षक को अंतिम आदेश तक सर्विस सेलरी कंटीन्यू ,
बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में यह सब खुले आम हो रहा - नौकरी किसी के नाम पर , पढ़ा कोई और रहा , शिक्षक समय पर आते नहीं , पढ़ाते नहीं
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 13336 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ashwani Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secy.Deptt.Of Basic &Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshemendra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bindhyawashni Kumar
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
It is alleged that on 2.12.2016 the petitioner made a surprise visit at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ranjitpurwa where Smt. Chinta Singh, Head Mistress was present, but Pawan Kumar Yadav, Assistant Teacher was absent and in his place one outsider was imparting education to the students. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that the outsider was imparting education to the students with the consent of Head Mistress. On 3.12.2016, the petitioner submitted a report in the office of respondent no.4 recommending strict disciplinary action against Amarjeet Singh, Incharge and Smt. Chinta Singh, Head Mistress. It is alleged that such kind of practice is prevailing in several school of the district. On coming to know about the said report the Uttar Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh, Gonda (in short 'Sangh') on 21.1.2017 made a complaint against the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Gonda in which it was inter alia stated that the petitioner was the original resident of District Gonda, and as such, he could not be posted in district Gonda. On the very next day i.e. on 22.1.2017, on the basis of the said complaint, the District Magistrate/ District Election Officer, Gonda passed an order directing the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda to write a letter to the Director of Education (Basic) U.P., and till the time the petitioner was transferred out of Gonda, he be attached in the office of the latter. In pursuance of the order dated 22.1.2017, the District Basic Education Officer on 23.1.2017 passed an order by means of which the petitioner was attached with the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Pant Nagar, Gonda.
On 9.3.2017,� the District Basic Education Officer wrote to the Director of Education (Basic) wherein after referring to the complaint made by the Sangh it was stated that the Additional District Magistrate in his inquiry had come to the conclusion that the parental house and property of the petitioner was in District Gonda; that the attitude of the petitioner towards other teachers was not proper; his behaviour was indecent and the working of the petitioner was not like that of a government servant. It was further stated that the petitioner had accepted that Gonda was his parental home and had requested to continue him in Gonda on the ground of his disability, but looking into the seriousness of the matter on account of serious complaint and charges against the petitioner, it was expedient that the petitioner be transferred out of Gonda. It was further stated that after going through the inquiry report, and after obtaining legal opinion of the District Government Counsel, the District Magistrate/ District Election Officer, Gonda had directed that as Model Code of Conduct was in operation, the petitioner be immediately relieved and disciplinary inquiry be initiated against him after serving a charge sheet upon him. In the light of the above, it was stated that the petitioner was being relieved from District Gonda and recommendation was being made for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint received against him. Copy of the said letter was forwarded to the petitioner directing him to submit his joining in the office of the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad.
In pursuance of the letter dated 22.1.2017 of the District Magistrate, Gonda and letter dated 23.1.2017 of the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda, the Additional Director of Basic Education, Directorate of Education, Allahabad passed an order on 30.5.2017 by means of which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Block Education Officer, Gonda to District Kannauj on administrative grounds and in public interest.
The order dated 30.5.2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of transfer dated 30.5.2017 has been passed in mala fide exercise of power inasmuch as without there being any transfer order the petitioner was relieved from Gonda and was attached with the office of the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad. It has been further submitted that recital in the letter dated 9.3.2017 of the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda that the petitioner had admitted that Gonda was his home town is absolutely incorrect. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that home town of the petitioner is Basti and this is borne out from the service book of the petitioner, and even assuming that the home town of the petitioner was Gonda, as per transfer policy the petitioner being a physically handicapped person could be posted in his home town on his own report subject to availability of post. Learned counsel has submitted that transfer order has been passed by way of punishment and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the transfer is an incident of service and has tried to justify the impugned order.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Admittedly, complaint was made by the Sangh on 21.12.2016 and on the very next day the petitioner was attached with the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda and without there being any order of transfer the petitioner was relieved from Gonda and attached with the office of Additional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad. The home town of the petitioner recorded in the service book is Basti and the petitioner, being a handicapped candidate, as per policy of the State Government, even assuming his home town was Gonda, could be continued in Gonda.
We are, prima facie, of the opinion that the undue haste and the manner in which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Block Education Officer, Gonda and ultimately has been transferred out of Gonda smacks of mala fide and is by way of punishment.
Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner, if so advised, may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
List this case after the expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing operation of the impugned order dated 30.5.2017, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, passed by the Additional Director of Basic Education, Directorate of Education, Allahabad shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post of Block Education Officer, Gonda and shall be paid his salary.
Order Date :- 8.6.2017
Anupam
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
नियम विरुध्द तैनाती पर कोर्ट ने ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग कमेटी को रेफर किया बेसिक शिक्षक का मामला
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15815 of 2017
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Sanjai Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer-respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School maintained by the Basic Education Board. The posting, transfer and attachment of Teachers are done according to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 (in short '2008 Rules') with first amendment in 2010. Rule 9 of the said 2008 Rules provides for constitution of a Posting Committee consisting of four members. All transfer and posting are to be done by the aforesaid committee. In the present case the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Parsa Kutub, Block-Ram Nagar, District-Basti on 8.2.2010. He was subsequently, by an order was promoted on the post of Headmaster on 31.12.2014 and was posted at Primary School Madhvapur, Block-Saltaua, District Basti. Thereafter on some ground the petitioner was attached on 22.1.2015 in Uchchtar Prathamik Vidyalay Sabdeiya Khurd, Block-Saughat, District Basti where the petitioner is working.
It is submitted that the petitioner was inconvenienced with the fact that he was appointed in a different institution and was attached to a different institution and salary that was being paid was from the institution, namely, Primary School Madhvapur whereas the petitioner is working in different school. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to the District Basic Education Officer that since he was attached to a different school, his salary be paid from that school. By an order dated 22.12.2016 it was provided that the petitioner be paid his salary from the school where he has been attached. This order has now been recalled by the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 on the ground that the said order has not been passed by the Committee so constituted under Rule 9 of the 2008 Rules.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
In my view, it would be appropriate to direct the Committee constituted under Rule 9 of the 2008 Rules to look into the matter and consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti will place the papers of the petitioner before the said Committee, which will consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the papers are presented before it. Till the time the said decision is taken by the Committee under the time prescribed, the petitioner shall be paid salary as per order dated 22.12.2016.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.4.2017
Sunil Kr. Gupta
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
