Transfer News - कोर्ट : पुरुष शिक्षकों को महिलाओं की तरह अंतर्जनपदीय स्थानतंत्रण का लाभ नहीं मिलेगा, मयूचल ट्रांसफर भी नहीं

Transfer News - कोर्ट : पुरुष शिक्षकों को महिलाओं की तरह अंतर्जनपदीय स्थानतंत्रण का लाभ नहीं मिलेगा, मयूचल ट्रांसफर भी नहीं 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 7 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17151 of 2018 
Petitioner :- Abdul Qayyum 
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board Allahabad And 3 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav,Shivam Yadav 

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 
The petitioner is an Assistant teacher in a Basic School in District - Agra. He wants his Transfer to District - Meerut. The Controversy with regard to transfer of Male Assistant Teachers in terms of the Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 were considered by this Court in WRIT - A No. - 16178 of 2018 (Lalit Mohan Bhardwaj Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others), which was dismissed by order dated 30.07.2018, as under: 
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief: 
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent No.3, the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad at Allahabad to pass an appropriate order for consideration the grievance of petitioner as per Rule 8(2)(F) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules 2008, as amended Rule 2010, as well as Rule 21 of the Rules U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Services ) Rules, 1981. 
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent No.3, the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad at Allahabad to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.5.2018 (Annexure No.4)". 
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner for transfer from District - Lakhimpur Khiri to District - Shamli, may be considered in terms of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008. Rule 8(2) of the Rules, provides as under: 
"8. Posting. - (2)(a) The newly appointed male teachers shall initially be posted compulsorily in backward area for a period of at least five years. 
(b) Newly appointed female teachers shall also be compulsorily posted in backward area for a period of at least two years. 
(c) Mutual transfers within the district from general block of backward block and vice-versa would be permitted with the condition that the teacher on mutual transfer to a backward block shall have to serve in that block compulsorily for five years. Mutual transfers would be permitted only in case of those teachers who have more than remaining five year's service. 
(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district. 
(e) If by virtue of posting of newly appointed or promoted teachers the primary and upper primary schools of backward blocks get saturated i.e., no post of teacher is vacant in these schools, then handicapped and female teachers on their choice can be adjusted against the vacant posts of general blocks from these saturated blocks. 
(f) Mutual transfers of male/female teachers from one backward blocks to another can be considered. 
(3) Teachers transferred from one district to another will be given posting as per the provisions of these rules." 
The petitioner is a male Assistant Teacher who was appointed by appointment letter dated 14.11.2015, in Primary School Imaliya, Block Esanagar, District - Lakhimpur Khiri. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that his initial appointment as aforementioned was made in a backward area. Clause (a) of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 specifically provides that the newly appointed male teacher shall initially be posted compulsorily in backward areas for a period of at least 5 years. The petitioner has not yet served in the aforesaid backward area for minimum period of 5 years. Clause (c) of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 provides for mutual transfer within the District, which is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Clause (d) of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 specifically provides that in normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teacher will not be entertained within five years of their posting. An exception has been carved out for female teachers that in special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfer in respect of female teachers would be entertained for transfer to the place of residence of their husband or in-laws Districts. The petitioner is a male teacher. Therefore, the exception carved out in Clause (d) of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 is not applicable to the petitioner. Clause (f) of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 provides that mutual transfers of male/female teachers from one backward blocks to another can be considered. The relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is not for his mutual transfer from one block to another. The petitioner wants his transfer to another District. Therefore Clause (f) is also not applicable in the matter of the petitioner. 
In view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed." 
Following the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is also dismissed.� 
Order Date :- 10.8.2018/vkg



 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
 

Transfer News - कोर्ट ने माना कि महिलाओं को नियमानुसार 8(d) के तहत ट्रांसफर मिलना चाहिए, लेकिन इसके लिए सचिव को प्रत्यावेदन देना होगा -

Transfer News - कोर्ट ने माना कि महिलाओं को नियमानुसार 8(d) के तहत ट्रांसफर मिलना चाहिए, लेकिन  इसके लिए सचिव को प्रत्यावेदन देना होगा, अब सभी फैसले इस आरती पाल की याचिका आधारित आ रहे हैं  - 

Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order. 
For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no legal bar in considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008. 
Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the first respondent i.e. Principal Secretary Basic Education, U.P. Civil Services Secretariat, Lucknow to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 23 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16712 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Smt. Arti Pal 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Akash Dikshit 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,J.B.S. Rathour 

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 
Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 
Learned Chief Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, Sri J.B.S. Rathour, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4. 
The petitioner is Assistant teacher in Primary School Hemmapur, Block Baldirai, District Sultanpur since 20.9.2025. The husband of the petitioner has also been granted appointed on the post of teacher in an institution which is aided and recognized under the provision of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and is receiving aid from the State Government. The petitioner moved an application on 21.5.2018 on the ground that the family of hte husband of the petitioner is residing at District Hardoi and her mother-in-law is suffering from ill health, so that she may be transferred at District Hardoi. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 deals with the posting and transfer of the teachers working in Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools run by the Board. 
The Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 provides that in normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers can be entertained of only those teachers who have completed five years of their posting, however, the exception is provided that an application of a female teacher for her transfer at the place of her husband or in-laws would be entertained. 
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the petitioner is directed to submit on-line application in terms of Government Order dated 3.5.2017, in that event the petitioner would not be eligible for transfer as she has not completed five years of requisite service. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of R.B. Dixit v. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 83. 
Sri Ghaus Beg and Sri Vindhya Washini Kumar, learned Advocates, who have put in appearance on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer submit that the State Government has issued guidelines on 13.6.2017 in respect of inter-district transfer of the assistant teachers of Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools for the session 2017-18. They further submit that on-line applications would be accepted from 16th to 29th January, 2018 and the procedure has been laid down under the said guidelines. 
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court. 
The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 have been framed under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The Rule 8(d) provides as under: 
"(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district." 
From a reading of the aforesaid Rule it is evident that under the special circumstances an application of a female teacher can be entertained for her transfer at the place of residence of her husband or in-law's district. In such cases the requirement of five years of posting has been relaxed. 
It is a well settled law that the Government Order cannot supplant the law, it can only supplement it. Indisputably, an executive order cannot override the Rules which have been framed by the rule making authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Act. In case of any inconsistency with the delegated legislation, executive instructions or the Government Order, the Rule cannot be ignored. The same issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in R.B. Dixit (supra) in the following terms: 
"6. We have held in Smart Chip v. State of U.P., 2002 (49) ALR 419, that in every legal system there is a hierarchy of norms as noted by the eminent jurist Kelson in his Pure Theory of Law. In the Indian Legal System this hierarchy is as follows: 
1. The Constitution. 
2. Statutory law, which may either be made by the Parliament or by the State legislature. 
3. Delegated legislation, which may be either in the form of Rules, Regulations or Statutes made under the Act. 
4. Executive instructions or Government Orders. 
7. In the above hierarchy if there is conflict between a higher law and a lower law then the higher law will prevail. The executive instructions are part of the fourth layer in the hierarchy, which is at the lowest level, whereas an Act is part of the second layer and the Statutes made under the Act are delegated legislation and hence part of the third layer. The letters dated 31.8.1998 and 30.3.1999 are only executive instructions and hence they belong to the fourth layer. Hence they are neither Act nor Statutes. Hence in our opinion the age of retirement of an employee of the Indian Institute of technology is 60 years and not 62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the decision in Raja Ram Verma's case." 
This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Sarita Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 7096 of 2010, decided on 30.7.2010. The Court had occasion to deal with the similar arguments and at that time a Government order was issued imposing certain restrictions on transfer. The Court has expressed its view in the following terms: 
"The ban is general in nature. However, the provision of transfer for the purposes of placing husband and wife in the same district is a special provision which will normally prevail upon general temporary restriction on transfer. 
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad is directed to decide the matter ignoring the ban order dated 6.6.2009. The decision shall be taken positively within three weeks from today." 
It is trite that in most of the services of the Central Government and the State Governments, there is provision in their transfer policy that an endeavour should be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place. In view of the said principle, under the Rules 2008 the provision of the couple posting has been incorporated. 
The intention of rule making authority is very clear and it needs no elaboration.Relevant it would be to mention that in transfer policy of State Government for Government employees there is provision only for husband and wife but in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 the in-laws of the female teachers have also been included. Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order. 
For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no legal bar in considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008. 
Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the first respondent i.e. Principal Secretary Basic Education, U.P. Civil Services Secretariat, Lucknow to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 
No order as to costs. 
Order Date :- 2.7.2018 
Manoj



 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 News - प्रमोशन में टी ई टी की अनिवार्यता के विरुद्द याचिका, कोर्ट ने सरकार से जवाब दाखिल करने को कहा

UPTET  News - प्रमोशन में टी ई टी की अनिवार्यता के विरुद्द याचिका, कोर्ट ने सरकार से जवाब दाखिल करने को कहा


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 23 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22191 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Durre Shahwar Zaheer And Anr. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Kumar 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajiv Singh Chauhan 

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead National Council for Teacher Education as respondent no.5 to the writ petition during course of the day. He shall also serve a copy of the writ petition upon learned counsel representing the said respondent before this Court and shall also intimate him about the next date fixed in the instant matter in writing.� 
Basically two questions arise for consideration in the instant petition. The first is whether T.E.T. is the minimum eligibility qualification required under N.C.T.E's. notification dated 12.11.2014 for considering a teacher for promotion as Headmaster of Junior High School and Assistant Teacher/Headmaster of Senior Basic School and second, whether the respondents are proceeding to accord consideration to candidates who do not possess T.E.T. qualification. 
Learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 seeks time to obtain instructions in the matter. 
Put up as fresh on 13.8.2018. 
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)�� 
Order Date :- 6.8.2018 
SL




 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
 

CTET प्राथमिक लेवल परीक्षा के लिए B Ed धारी भी पात्र ?

CTET प्राथमिक लेवल परीक्षा के लिए B Ed धारी भी पात्र ?


CTET परीक्षा कराने वाली संस्था CBSE  जिस NCTE गाइड लाइंस के तहत परीक्षा करती है और अपने होम पेज पर उसका उल्लेख भी किया हुआ है | 
In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 and 29th JULY, 2011

उस 29 जुलाई 2011 के नोटिफिकेशन में सशोधन हो चुका है और प्राथमिक शिक्षक बनने के लिए टेट लेवल -1 परीक्षा के लिए अब B Ed धारी भी पात्र हैं | 
See here : http://ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/Gazette_notification.pdf

गजट / राजपत्र नोटिफिकेशन को तत्काल प्रभाव से लागु किया जाता है , ऐसा के वी एस 2011 की भर्ती के मध्य में तत्काल प्रभाव से टेट को लागु करके भी हुआ था , और सभी सरकारी भर्तियों के मध्य में परिवर्तन कर टेट लागु हुआ था | 

F. No. NCTE-Regl 012/16/2018.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act. 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of notification number S.O. 750(E), dated the 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby makes the following further amendments to the notification number F.N. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S), dated the 23rd August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 25th August, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the said notification namely:— (1) In the said notification, in para 1 in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets “Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), the following shall be inserted, namely:- OR “Graduation with at least 50 % marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)” 2. In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para(a), the following sub-para shall be substituted namely:- “(a) who has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognized institution shall be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as primary teacher”. SANJAY AWASTHI, Member Secy. [ADVT.-III/4/Exty./121/18-19] Note : The Principal Notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 25th August, 2010 vide number 64-03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S), dated the 23rd August, 2010 and amended vide number 61-1/2011/NCTE(N&S), dated the 29th July, 2011

CTET - बी एड डिग्री धारकों ने CTET प्राथमिक लेवल परीक्षा में शामिल न करने पर CBSE निदेशक को लिखा पत्र , सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल

CTET  - बी एड डिग्री धारकों ने CTET प्राथमिक लेवल परीक्षा में शामिल न करने पर CBSE निदेशक को लिखा पत्र , सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल 

CTET News - - CTET 2018: सीटीईटी के आवेदन शुरू, बीएड डिग्रीधारियों को प्राथमिक में मौका नहीं, तीन बार बदला नोटिफिकेशन

CTET News - - 

CTET 2018: सीटीईटी के आवेदन शुरू, बीएड डिग्रीधारियों को प्राथमिक में मौका नहीं, तीन बार बदला नोटिफिकेशन

दो साल बाद होने जा रही केंद्रीय माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड की केंद्रीय शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (सीटीईटी) के प्राथमिक स्तर से बीएड डिग्रीधारियों को बाहर कर दिया गया है। सीबीएसई ने बुधवार को बड़े ही नाटकीय घटनाक्रम में सीटीईटी की अधिसूचना को तीन बार बदला और आखिरकार बीएड डिग्रीधारियों को बाहर का रास्ता दिखा दिया।

बुधवार को पहले नोटिफिकेशन में प्राथमिक स्तर की सीटीईटी में बीएड डिग्री शामिल नहीं थी। इसे संशोधित करते हुए दोबारा बीएड को मान्य करते हुए अधिसूचना जारी की गई। लेकिन तकरीबन एक घंटे बाद फिर अधिसूचना में संशोधन करते हुए बीएड को बाहर कर दिया गया। सीबीएसई के इस कदम से विवाद की स्थिति पैदा होना तय है।
राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) के 28 जून 2018 को अपने नियमों में संशोधन करते हुए बीएड डिग्रीधारियों को प्राथमिक स्तर की परीक्षा के लिए मान्य कर लिया था।

ऐसे में सीबीएसई द्वारा उन्हें बाहर किये जाने पर विवाद होना तय है क्योंकि शैक्षिक अर्हता का निर्धारण एनसीटीई करती है। उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर में बीएड पहले से मान्य है।
ऑनलाइन आवेदन बुधवार से शुरू हो गये और अभ्यर्थी 27 अगस्त तक फार्म भर सकते हैं।

हालांकि अभी परीक्षा की तारीख घोषित नहीं की गई है। सीबीएसई ने जून के पहले सप्ताह में भी सीटीईटी के लिए नोटिफिकेशन जारी किया था। उस समय परीक्षा तिथि 16 सितंबर निर्धारित की गई थी। लेकिन 19 जून को सीबीएसई ने अपरिहार्य कारणों से फार्म भरने की तिथि स्थगित कर दी थी।
उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने प्राथमिक और उच्च प्राथमिक स्कूलों में शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए यूपी-टीईटी के अलावा सीटीईटी को भी मान्य किया है। यही कारण है कि बड़ी संख्या में अभ्यर्थी सीटीईटी के लिए आवेदन करते हैं

 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Supreme Court : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने कड़े शब्दों में कहा की 730 दिन की चाइल्ड केयर लीव एक साथ ली जा सकती है , रूल में कहीं नहीं लिखा की लगातार नहीं ली जा सकती , सरकारी पक्ष ने बिना किसी कारण से लीव घटाकर 45 दिन कर दी , जो की नियम विरुद्ध है

Supreme Court : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने कड़े शब्दों में कहा की 730 दिन की चाइल्ड केयर लीव एक साथ ली जा सकती है , रूल में कहीं नहीं लिखा की लगातार नहीं ली जा सकती , सरकारी पक्ष ने बिना किसी कारण से लीव घटाकर 45 दिन कर दी , जो की नियम विरुद्ध है 


Supreme Court of India
Kakali Ghosh vs Chief Secy. A & N Administration

Author: ………………………………………………….J.
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, V. Gopala Gowda
                                                                             REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4506 OF 2014
                 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012)

KAKALI GHOSH                                             … APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

CHIEF SECRETARY,
ANDAMAN & NICOBAR
ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.                        … RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is whether a woman employee of the Central Government can ask for uninterrupted 730 days of Child Care Leave (hereinafter referred to as, - ‘the CCL’) under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’).

4. The appellant initially applied for CCL for six months commencing from 5th July, 2011 by her letter dated 16th May, 2011 to take care of her son who was in 10th standard. In her application, she intimated that she is the only person to look after her minor son and her mother is a heart patient and has not recovered from the shock due to the sudden demise of her father; her father-in-law is almost bed ridden and in such circumstances, she was not in a position to perform her duties effectively. While her application was pending, she was transferred to Campbell Bay in Nicobar District (Andaman and Nicobar) where she joined on 06th July, 2011. By her subsequent letter dated 14th February, 2012 she requested the competent authority to allow her to avail CCL for two years commencing from 21st May, 2012. However, the authorities allowed only 45 days of CCL by their Office Order No. 254 dated 16th March, 2012.

5. Aggrieved appellant then moved before the Tribunal in O.A. No.47/A&N/2012 which allowed the application by order dated 30th April, 2012 with following observation:-

“12. Thus O.A. is allowed. Respondents are accordingly directed to act strictly in accordance with DOPT O.M. dated 11.9.2008 as amended/clarified on 29.9.2008 and 18.11.2008, granting her CCL for the due period. No costs.”
6. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by respondents before the Calcutta High Court which by impugned judgment and order dated 18th September, 2012 while observing that leave cannot be claimed as a right, held as follows:

“It is evident from the provisions of sub r.(3) of r.43-C of the rules that CCL can be granted only according to the conditions mentioned in the sub-rule, and that one of the conditions is that CCL shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year. It means that CCL is not to be granted for a continuous period, but only in spells.
From the provisions of sub r.(3) of r.43-C of the rules it is also evident that a spell of CCL can be for as less as 16 days. This means that in a given case a person, though eligible to take CCL for a maximum period of 730 days, can be granted CCL in three spells in a calendar year for as less as 48 days.” The High Court further observed:
“Whether an eligible person should be granted CCL at all, and, if so, for what period, are questions to be decided by the competent authority; for the person is to work in the interest of public service, and ignoring public service exigencies that must prevail over private exigencies no leave can be granted.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no bar to grant uninterrupted 730 days of CCL under Rule 43-C. The High Court was not justified in holding that CCL can be granted in three spells in a calendar year as less as 48 days at a time. It was also contended that the respondents failed to record ground to deny uninterrupted CCL to appellant for the rest of the period.

8. Per contra, according to respondents, Rule 43-C does not permit uninterrupted CCL for 730 days as held by the High Court.

9. Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise of the above contentions, it will be necessary for us to refer the relevant Rule and the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time.

10. The Government of India from its Department of Personnel and Training vide O.M. No. 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 11th September, 2008 intimated that CCL can be granted for maximum period of 730 days during the entire service period to a woman government employee for taking care of up to two children, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“(1) Child Care Leave for 730 days.
*** Women employees having minor children may be granted Child Care Leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years (i.e. 730 days) during their entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc. Child Care Leave shall not be admissible if the child is eighteen years of age or older. During the period of such leave, the women employees shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. It may be availed of in more than one spell. Child Care Leave shall not be debited against the leave account. Child Care Leave may also be allowed for the third year as leave not due (without production of medical certificate). It may be combined with leave of the kind due and admissible.”
11. It was followed by Circular issued by Government of India from its Personnel and Training Department vide O.M. No. 13018/2/2008- Estt. (L), dated 29th September, 2008 by which it was clarified that CCL would be also admissible to a woman government employee to look after third child below 18 years of age, which is as follows:

“(2) Clarifications:-
The question as to whether child care leave would be admissible for the third child below the age of 18 years and the procedure for grant of child care leave have been under consideration in this Department, and it has now been decided as follows:-
i) Child Care Leave shall be admissible for two eldest surviving children only.
ii) The leave account for child care leave shall be maintained in the pro forma enclosed, and it shall be kept along with the Service Book of the Government Servant concerned.”
12. Rule 43-C was subsequently inserted by Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Notification No. F.No. 11012/1/2009- Estt. (L) dated 1st December, 2009, published in G.S.R. No. 170 in the Gazette of India dated 5th December, 2009 giving effect from 1st September, 2008 as quoted below:-

“43-C. Child Care Leave
1) A women Government servant having minor children below the age of eighteen years and who has no earned leave at her credit, may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years, i.e. 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc.
2) During the period of child care leave, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave.
3) Child care leave may be combined with leave of any other kind.
4) Notwithstanding the requirement of production of medical certificate contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, leave of the kind due and admissible (including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days and leave not due) up to a maximum of one year, if applied for, be granted in continuation with child care leave granted under sub-rule (1).
5) Child care leave may be availed of in more than one spell.
6) Child care leave shall not be debited against the leave account.”
13. On perusal of circulars and Rule 43-C, it is apparent that a woman government employee having minor children below 18 years can avail CCL for maximum period of 730 days i.e. during the entire service period for taking care of upto two children. The care of children is not for rearing the smaller child but also to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 43-C allows woman government employee to combine CCL with leave of any other kind. Under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 43- C leave of the kind due and admissible to woman government employee including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days; leave not due up to a maximum of one year, can be applied for and granted in continuation with CCL granted under Sub Rule (1). From plain reading of Sub Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 43-C it is clear that CCL even beyond 730 days can be granted by combining other leave if due. The finding of the High Court is based neither on Rule 43-C nor on guidelines issued by the Central Government. The Tribunal was correct in directing the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and Rule 43-C.

14. In the present case, the appellant claimed for 730 days of CCL at a stretch to ensure success of her son in the forthcoming secondary/senior examinations (10th/11th standard). It is not in dispute that son was minor below 18 years of age when she applied for CCL. This is apparent from the fact that the competent authority allowed 45 days of CCL in favour of the appellant. However, no reason has been shown by the competent authority for disallowing rest of the period of leave.

15. Leave cannot be claimed as of right as per Rule 7, which reads as follows:

“7. Right to leave (1) Leave cannot be claimed as of right.
(2) When the exigencies of public service so require, leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servant.” However, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 leave can be refused or revoked by the competent authority in the case of exigencies of public service.

16. In fact, Government of India from its Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training all the time encourage the government employees to take leave regularly, preferably annually by its Circular issued by the Government of India M.H.A.O.M. No. 6/51/60-Ests. (A), dated 25th January, 1961, reiterated vide Government of India letter dated 22/27th March, 2001. As per those circulars where all applications for leave cannot, in the interest of public service, be granted at the same time, the leave sanctioning authority may draw up phased programme for the grant of leave to the applicants by turn with due regard to the principles enunciated under the aforesaid circulars.

17. In the present case the respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 730 days continuous leave. The grounds taken by them and as held by High Court cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and affirm the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment.

19. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid directions. No costs.

………………………………………………….J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) ……………………………………………….J.

(V. GOPALA GOWDA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 15, 2014.

Child Care Leave - Continuous 730 days CCL can be availed with Maternity Leave, Principal modified it for 60 days only and court finds it is wrong -

Child Care Leave - Continuous 730 days CCL can be availed with Maternity Leave, Principal modified it for 60 days only and court finds it is wrong - 

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Mrs. Najma Raza vs Directorate Of Education on 16 January, 2014

      

  

  

 Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

OA No.3460/2012

Thursday, this the 16th day of January, 2014

Hon ble Shri G. George Paracken, Member (J)

Mrs. Najma Raza
TGT (Urdu), RPSV
R/o A-64, 2nd Floor
Ashoka Enclave-2
Sector-37, Faridabad.
             ...Applicant

(By Advocate: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh)

Versus
1. Directorate of Education, NCT of Delhi
Through Deputy Director of Education (N.D)
Plot No.5, Jhandewalan
New Delhi. 

2. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, (Govt.) S. Vidyalaya
Through its Principal
President Estate
New Delhi   110004.

3. Govt. of NCT
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi, Secretariate, I.T.O.
New Delhi. 
      Respondents.

(By advocate: Shri B.N.P. Pathak)

ORDER(ORAL)

Shri G.George Paracken, M(J) The applicant in this OA has challenged the impugned Memorandum dated 31.08.2012 according to which the applicant was informed that after the expiry of her maternity leave w.e.f. 04.09.2009 to 02.03.2010 she can be granted Child Care Leave for only 60 days w.e.f. 03.03.2010 to 01.05.2010, as per the directions of this Tribunal in its order dated 11.07.2012 in OA No. 4006/2011 filed by her earlier. The reliefs/interim reliefs sought by her are as under:-

(A) Declare memorandum dated 31.08.2012 qua denied leave to applicant w.e.f. 2.5.2010 till 12.7.2012 as issued by R-2 as bad in law vide qua aforesaid and set aside and consequently order/direct the respondents to regularize the leave fully as CCL excluding the period of 11.11.2011 to 11.05.2012 (6 months).

(B) Order/direct the Respondent consequently to treat the applicant w.e.f. 3.3.2010 on continued Child Care Leave (CCL) keeping in view of her un rebutted clarification by letter dated 18.8.2012 and 3.9.2012.

(C) Declare and consequently order/direct the Respondents while regulating the CCL w.e.f. 3.3.2010 to 12.7.2010 (excluding period from 11.11.2011 to 11.5.2011) to adjust actual vacations holidays, which applicant, being vacation department employee is as entitled as per statute, without even approval, along-with C.C.L. keeping in view of her letter dated 18.8.2012 and 3.9.2012.

(D) Consequently Order/direct the respondents to pay her salary w.e.f. April 2010 till Sept. 2012 along with 18% p.a. interest and further salary till the actual date of payment with 24% interest on delayed payment and recover the same from the guilty official s individuals.

(E) Consequently Order/direct a suitable enquiry against the guilty officials for the wrongful acts to fix the responsibility as per procedure established under law.

(F) Consequently order and direct suitable compensation not less than 3 lacs and cost to the applicant towards her faced harassment, dishonest victimisation, suffering insults, mental agony, loss of career status and causing damage of her career and reputation etc. (G) Pass any such other/further consequential order/direction which this learned Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Interim Relief (A) Pending O.A. the respondents be directed to pay at least undisputed four months due salary from April 2010 to July 2010 and salary from 13, July 2012 to September 2012 after re-joining, which is also admitted by respondents vide impugned memo dated 31.08.2012 and speaking order dated 14.8.2012, immediately, keeping the issue claimed full salary and of interest thereupon for final adjudication for the period of April 2010 till actual payment.

(B) Direct/order the Respondents not to victimise and harass her in any manner nor transfer her with evil design or create unnecessary deliberate administrative and teaching complication etc.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an Urdu Teacher working with Respondent No.2, namely, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Govt. S. Vidyalaya, New Delhi. The Principal of the school, vide letter dated 30.04.2009, allowed her to proceed on maternity leave from the month of July, 2009 after availing the CL/EL and Special Leave admissible to her. Thereafter, the applicant proceeded on maternity leave from 02.07.2009 and she delivered a pre-mature child on 04.09.2009. She has also informed about the aforesaid position to the respondents on 05.11.2009. Thereafter, vide her letter dated 03.03.2010, she applied for Child Care Leave followed by maternity leave as the doctor has advised her to restrain herself from physical hard work and hectic work schedule for 60 days. Therefore, the applicant initially applied for 60 days CCL on 03.03.2010. However, the respondents, vide their memorandum dated 20.03.2010, rejected her application. As the applicant did not report for duty, she was issued with memoranda dated 21.04.2010, 14.09.2010 and 10.02.2011 directing her to report for duty. She replied to all those Memoranda and informed her inability to join duty. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Education Department called for the comments of the Principal of the School and vide her letter dated 23.06.2010, a copy of which has been obtained by the applicant under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Principal informed the Education Officer as under:-

That, Mrs. Nazma Raza has never applied for any kind of Earned/Child Care Leave and remain absent from the duty since 02.07.2009 till date.

That, she never intimated the office about period of maternity leave.

That, Mrs. Nazma Raza sent information that she may be considered on child care leave without mentioning the period and date.

That, her application was sent to E.O. Zone -26 for grant of child care leave and E.O Zone-26 rejected the same by writing child care leave can not be claimed as matter of right.

That, she was given two memorandums to join the school but she never came to join the school and did not assign any reason. In the absence of any application indicating nature and period of leave her leave account can not be updated.

That, she is sitting at home and she is asking child care leave as a matter of right without following the proper procedure of leave sanctioned.

Mr. Nazma Raza is the only TGT (Urdu) of this school where the large number of students of Urdu language are studying, Students had suffered during the academic year 2009-2010.

Sd/-

Principal Dr. N.P. Dhaka

3. Finally, the respondents, vide Memorandum dated 28.06.2011, proposed to proceed against her under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The article of charges leveled against her are as under:-

ARTICLE-I Smt. Nazma Raza, TGT (Urdu), presently working in Dr. Rajinder Prasad Sarvodaya Vidhyala, Rashtrapati Bhawa, New Delhi, has proceeded on willful leave/unauthorized absence w.e.f. 02/07/2009 on the presumption / in anticipation of Maternity Leave without seeking the approval of the Competent Authority. Thus, she has exhibited lack of responsibility and devotion to duty which is in violation of provision of Rule-25 of CCS (leave) Rules, 1972 and has exhibited conduct of unbecoming of Govt. servant and has violated CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-II Smt. Nazma Raza, TGT (Urdu), presently working in Dr. Rajinder Prasad Sarvodaya Vidhyala, Rashtrapati Bhawa, New Delhi, has proceeded on willful leave/unauthorized absence w.e.f. 02/07/2009 on the presumption / in anticipation of Maternity Leave without seeking the approval of the Competent Authority.

Smt. Nazma Raza, TGT (Urdu) was blessed with a child on 04.09.2009. She subsequently remained on assumed Maternity Leave which would have been otherwise admissible for a period of 06 months which in any way got completed on 03/03/2010.

ARTICLE-II Smt. Nazma Raza, TGT (Urdu), has again made a request dated 03/03/2010 to the School Authorities for grant of 60 days Child Care Leave in continuation to Maternity Leave which was summarily rejected by E.O. Zone-26 on the grounds of pre requisite formalities to be met for grant of Child Care Leave.

Despite several directions, reminders, memorandums and other authorities to Smt. Nazma Raza, TGT (Urdu), did not bother to resume her duties even as on date.

Thus, the said Smt. Nazma Raza, while functioning as TGT (Urdu) in Dr.RPSV, Rashtrapati Bhawa, New Delhi has flouted the departmental directions for not joining the duties immediately and thus acted in a manner of unbecoming of Govt. servant which amount disobedience and indiscipline on the part of said Smt. Nazma Raza, TGT (Urdu) and hence violated Rule-3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

4. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order before this Tribunal vide OA No.4006/2011 (supra) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2012 directing the respondents to reconsider the application dated 3.3.2010 made by the applicant keeping in view the Govt. of India, DOP&T OM No.13018/1/2010-Estt.(Leave) dated 07.09.2010 and to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her vide show cause notice dated 01.9.2010, charge sheet dated 28.6.2011, in abeyance till such decision is taken and to allow her to join the duty before 13.07.2012. The respondents were also given two months time to carry out the aforesaid directions under intimation to her. The said OM reads as under:-

(5) CCL can be availed, even if employee has EL at credit.-

This Department has been receiving representations from Government servants through various quarters like the Public Grievances Cell / Associations, etc., requesting to review the decision to allow Child Care Leave (CCL) only if the employee has no E.L. at her credit.

2. This Department s O.M. No.13018/2/2008-Estt. (L), dated 11-9-2008, regarding introduction of Child Care Leave in respect of Central Government employees and subsequent clarifications vide O.Ms., dated 29-9-2008, 18-11-2008 and 2-12-2008 were reviewed. It has now been decided in consultation with Department of Expenditure, to delete the condition that CCL can be availed only if the employee concerned has no Earned Leave at her credit, subject to the following conditions:-

CCL may not be granted in more than 3 spells in a calendar year.

CCL may not be granted for less than 15 days.

CCL should not ordinarily be granted during the probation period except in case of certain extreme situations where the leave sanctioning authority is fully satisfied about the need of Child Care Leave to the probationer. It may also be ensured that the period for which this leave is sanctioned during probation is minimal.

3. It is reiterated that the leave is to be treated like Earned Leave and sanctioned as such.

4. These orders take effect from 1-9-2008. Earned Leave, if any, availed by women employees before availing CCL subsequent to the issue of the O.M. No.13018/2/2008-Estt. (L), dated 18-11-2008 may be adjusted against CCL, if so requested by the employee.

5. It is in pursuance to the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal that the respondents have issued the impugned Memorandum dated 31.08.2012 granting her only 60 days Child Care Leave from 04.09.2009 to 02.03.2010 and treating the rest of the period of her absence from 02.05.2010 to 12.07.2012 as unauthorized/unapproved absence from duty followed by CCL for 60 days from 03.03.2010 to 01.05.2010.

6. The respondents have filed their reply. Their main contention is that vide letter dated 03.03.2010, the applicant herself has applied only for 60 days Child Care Leave.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule 43(C) has been incorporated in CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 as a welfare measure for the working ladies vide DOP&Ts notification No.13018/1/2010-Estt.(Leave) dated 07.09.2010 published in the Gazette on 05.12.2009 and it has taken effect from 01.09.2008. According to the said Rule, the Govt. has fixed the maximum period of Child Care Leave for two years i.e. (730 days) and it reads as under:-

43-C. Child Care Leave. -

(1) A woman Government servant having minor children below the age of eighteen years and who has no earned leave at her credit, may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years, i.e., 730 days during the entire service for taking care of upto two children whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc. (2) During the period of child care leave, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave.

(3) Child care leave may be combined with Leave of any other kind.

(4) Notwithstanding the requirement of production of medical certificate contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 30 or sub-rule (1) of rule 31, leave of the kind due and admissible (including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days and leave not due) upto a maximum of one year, if applied for, be granted in continuation with child care leave granted under sub-rule (1).

(5) Child care leave may be availed of in more than one spell.

(6) Child care leave shall not be debited against the leave account.

8. In my considered view, on the request of the applicant, the respondents should have granted her Child Care Leave without any reservation. They could not have taken such an arbitrary view that since she has initially asked only for 60 days CCL, no further CCL can be granted to her. In fact, the Applicant has denied that she sought only 60 days leave but it was at the instance of the Principal that she had to add the words sixty days in ink in her typed application. In any case, she has clarified by the subsequent letter dated 03.03.2010 that she was requesting for the entire period CCL as admissible under the Rules. Even otherwise, the Child Care Leave for a maximum period of 730 days followed by Maternity Leave is a welfare measure introduced by the Government in the interest of the new born babies of working women. The Supervisory Officers are required to facilitate the lady officers to avail the said leave, on their request. At least they should not stand in their way and create mental tension and financial problems for such lady officers.

9. In view of the above position, I allow this OA. Consequently, the impugned memorandum dated 31.08.2012 is quashed and set aside. The applicant s absence shall be regularized after granting her maternity leave followed by 730 days of CCL as admissible under the aforesaid rules excluding the Summer Vacation. For the remaining period, the applicant may apply for the leave of the kind due and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider the same as per rules. The applicant shall also be given the salary and allowance for the aforesaid period of CCL as provided under the rules. However, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider that the applicant is entitled for any interest as prayed for. As regards the other reliefs sought by the applicant in this OA are concerned, the Applicant is at liberty to make fresh application for the consideration of the authorities concerned, if so advised. On receipt of such a representation within a reasonable time, the Respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate decision under intimation to her at the earliest. If the Applicant has any further surviving grievances, she is also at liberty to approach this Tribunal again through original separate proceedings.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

( G. George Paracken ) Member (J) /vb/

 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
 

Transfer News - पत्नी शिक्षिका को ऑनलाइन आवेदन के बाद भी सीतापुर से बुलंदशहर(पति पत्नी सरकारी सेवा) नहीं करने पर याचिका, कोर्ट ने शिक्षिका को 10 दिन के अंदर सचिव को रिप्रेजेंटेशन देने को कहा -

Transfer  News - पत्नी शिक्षिका को ऑनलाइन आवेदन के बाद भी सीतापुर से बुलंदशहर(पति पत्नी सरकारी सेवा) नहीं करने पर याचिका, कोर्ट ने शिक्षिका को 10 दिन के अंदर सचिव को रिप्रेजेंटेशन देने को कहा - 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 23 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21713 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Mrs. Deep Mala 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic&Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Raj Singh Yadav 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla 

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 
Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 5. Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4. 
The claim of the petitioner, who is a assistant teacher, is that he applied for the transfer from district Sitapur to district Bulandshahr on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is working in district Bulandshahr in the electricity department. 
The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner has applied for her transfer in a prescribed formate under the policy of the State Government dated 13.06.2017, wherein it has been provided that, in case husband and wife both are in government job, they can apply for their posting at one place. The respondents have displayed the list of transferred employees, wherein the name of the petitioner does not find place. He submitted that the petitioner has not been assigned any reason that why her claim has not been taken into consideration. 
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner represented her claim before the respondent no. 1 ventilating all her grievances, but no order whatsoever has been passed till date. 
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in case the petitioner represents her claim before the respondent no. 1 afresh ventilating all her grievances in detail, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed. 
In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation ventilating all her grievances before the respondent no. 1 within a period of ten days from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no. 1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order within a period of two months thereafter. 
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 
Pkb/



 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