एस्पिपिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से इंटरडिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर मामले में कोर्ट कार्यवाही

एस्पिपिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से इंटरडिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर मामले में कोर्ट कार्यवाही

Court No. - 40

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 778 of 2018

Appellant :- Smt. Sneh
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018
Heard Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
The delay explained in the affidavit discloses sufficient cause. Delay is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Appeal shall be given regular number.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018
ss


Court No. - 40

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 778 of 2018

Appellant :- Smt. Sneh
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on appeal
This appeal assails the order dated 13.08.2018 in the writ petition filed by the appellant pertaining to the relief prayed for namely that the application of the petitioner should be processed for transfer from Lakhimpur Kheri to Muzaffar Nagar. This is a matter of inter-district transfer of Assistant Teachers pursuant to Government Orders dated 13.6.2017, 20.09.2017 and 05.09.2018 read with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.
A large number of writ petitions were filed pertaining to transfer in aspirational districts and this legal issue came to be decided by answering the three questions framed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 holding that Assistant Teachers, who are working in aspirational districts, have no right of inter-districts transfer. It is further held that in the matter of transfer, the Board has the authority to frame guidelines and such guidelines, if framed, do not violate the Rules.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the said bunch, the appellant's case was also listed and it has been dismissed applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt. Ruchi versus State of U.P. and 2 others delivered on the same day.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that apart from the aforesaid legal issue, there was a specific case set up by the appellant in paragraph no. 32 and 33 to the following effect :
"32. That the entire exercise that has been undertaken by the respondents pertaining to the inter-district-transfer of the primary school teachers suffers from arbitrariness which is apparent from the face of the record inasmuch as the candidates who have secured 5 points have been granted inter-district-transfer.
33. That the petitioner is bringing on record the transfer orders pertaining to certain candidates who had either secured 5 points or 7 points and have still been granted the transfer while the petitioner has been denied the same even though petitioner stands on better footing as compared to such candidates. Copy of some of the orders in respect of the applicants who had secured 5 points and 7 points and who have been granted inter-district-transfer are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure-17 to the present writ petition."
Leaned counsel for the appellant submits that it appears that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the aforesaid contention raised by the appellant on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that some other candidates had been extended the benefit of transfer, who had secured 5 and 7 points respectively was not noted which prejudiced the cause of the appellant. To support the submission, learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to the documents filed as Annexure-17 to the said application bringing on record the transfer orders of such candidates, who are similarly situated, particularly with regard to the transfers made in the district of Muzaffar Nagar.
Prima facie this distinguishing feature does not appear to have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. So far as the other legal issues are concerned, we see no reason to take a different view from the judgment of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.870 of 2018 (Smt. Shikha Singh and 24 Others Versus State of U.P and 3 Others) decided on 04.10.2018 upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but so far as this specific case is concerned, as pleaded by the appellant the same does not appear to have been dealt with.
Accordingly, we direct that Sri Virendra Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 may file a counter affidavit particularly with regard to the averments made by the appellant in paragraphs no.32 and 33 of the original petition within two weeks.   
List immediately thereafter.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018
ss



 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
 

News - कोर्ट के इस आदेश के कारण 68500 शिक्षक भर्ती में CBI जांच होगी -

News -  कोर्ट के इस आदेश के कारण 68500 शिक्षक भर्ती में CBI जांच होगी - 



Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 
2. Learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 
3. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner and other petitioners of bunch of writ petitions, which are connected along with the present writ petition. In Writ Petition No.24172 (S/S) of 2018 filed by Sonika Devi, direction was issued to the respondents to produce the answer book of Set-B paper of Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2018 having roll No.29301607435 and registration No.3000001882 before this Court to verify the allegations levelled in the writ petition. The writ petition was entertained on 24.8.2018, on which date, this Court issued direction to the learned counsel for the respondents to seek instruction in the matter and place correct position of the awarding of marks to the petitioner by fixing a date on 28.8.2018. 
4. On 28.8.2018, when the matter was taken up, no response in regard to the awarding of marks to the petitioner was produced before this Court, therefore, the matter was posted for 30.8.2018 with the direction to the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority to appear in person before this Court along with the record of the petitioner and answer key issued by the respondents. Thereafter, record of the petitioner along with the answer book was produced by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority on 30.8.2018. 
5. On 30.8.2018, following order was passed: 
"In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 24.08.2018, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority is present today in the Court in person along with original answer sheet of the petitioner. 
On perusal of the answer sheet it appears that the handwriting bearing on the carbon copy of the answer sheet of the petitioner is different. 
On a pointed query being made in this regard, learned Advocate general, who is present in the Court, pointed out that the answer book contains a bar code on the first page as well as on each and every page of the answer book. Therefore, this Court may examine the bar code bearing on the answer book and in this regard arrangement shall be made tomorrow in the Court. 
Put up this matter tomorrow i.e. 31.08.2018 at 11.00 a.m.
The original answer book as well as carbon copy of the answer book may be kept on record in sealed cover." 
6. On 31.8.2018, Sri Dharmendra Shahi, Technical Expert produced by the learned Advocate General verified the bar code bearing on the first page and the bar code bearing on the inner pages of the answer sheet of the petitioner in the open Court proceedings and found that the same do not tally with the inner pages of the answer book of the petitioner. 
7. On 31.8.2018, learned Advocate General assured that necessary enquiry in this regard shall be made at the level of Government and person found involved in the matter shall be punished in accordance with law. Therefore, the case was adjourned on the assurance given by the learned Advocate General with the direction that on the date fixed i.e. 17.9.2018, learned Advocate General shall inform to this Court in regard to the progress of enquiry. 
8. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 17.9.2018, on which date, an information was furnished to this Court that proceeding is going on in regard to re-counting of marks of each and every candidate whether he has been selected or not, a 3 members committee was constituted to enquire into the complaint lodged in regard to the selection on the post of Assistant Teacher and the appointment made was subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 
9. On 25.9.2018, when the matter was taken up, following order was passed: 
"The Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has filed an affidavit bringing on record a copy of the order of suspension passed against Smt. Sutta Singh, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, the order of the Secretary Basic Education dated 08.09.2018 appointing Three Members Committee comprising of Sri Sanjay R. Bhusreddy, Principal Secretary, Sugar Industries & Sugarcane Development as Chairman, Sri Vedpati Mishra, Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan as Member and Sri Sarvendra Vikram Singh, Director, Basic as Member of the Committee. 
It is very surprising state of affairs on the part of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the State Government. Almost three weeks have passed but till date the State machinery is not able to find out the name of the persons involved in the change of pages of the answer-book of Sonika Devi and other candidates. 
On the request of learned Standing Counsel, put up this matter as fresh day after tomorrow i.e. 27.09.2018 at 2.15 p.m. 
On the next date the learned Standing Counsel shall produce the progress report of the enquiry made by the Committee constituted under the order dated 08.09.2018, failing which the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee shall remain present before this Court along with records of enquiry on the next date." 
10. In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 25.9.2018, learned Advocate General appeared and has produced progress of the enquiry dated 26.9.2018, wherein it has been admitted that there are 12 candidates, whose copies were found to be changed and accordingly, after revaluation of their correct copies, correct marks have been awarded. It has further been admitted in the report that in the result declared, 23 candidates who were declared to be qualified have been found to be not qualified in the first list. It has further been recorded in the enquiry report that in the second list, 24 candidates who were found not qualified in the written examination declared on 13.8.2018 have been found to be qualified. It has further been recorded that the firm which was engaged for coding and decoding has committed mistake and pages of the copies of the candidates were found attached to copies of other candidates appeared in the said examination. 
11. The report placed by the learned Advocate General be taken on record. 
12. In Writ Petition No.27798 (S/S) of 2018 (Vimlesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others), which is connected to the leading petition of Sonika Devi, there was an allegation of the same nature and in pursuance thereof, answer sheet of the petitioner and answer key was summoned. The allegation was that question Nos.38 and 137 of series-A was supplied to the petitioner and he has tallied the answer sheet with the answer key issued by the Examination Regulatory Authority and found those 2 answers to be correct, in spite of that the petitioner was awarded 65 marks. In the category of the petitioner, the candidates who have obtained 67 marks have been selected. In case 2 marks are awarded correctly to the petitioner, she would have been selected in the said recruitment process. 
13. On perusal of the answer sheet of the petitioner of Writ Petition No.27798 (S/S) of 2018, Court finds that answers given by the petitioner of question Nos.38 and 137 are correct as per the answer key issued by the respondents but zero marks were awarded to the petitioner. The candidates, who have obtained 67 marks of the category of the petitioner have been selected. In case the petitioner would have correctly been awarded 2 more marks on the correct answer, he would have also been selected on the said selection proceeding. 
14. Likewise, in Writ Petition No.25871 (S/S) of 2018, the petitioner has been awarded 65 marks and on issuance of scanned copy, which has been brought on record before this Court, the petitioner would have been awarded 70 marks and he would have been selected as the merit fixed for selection was 67. 
15. The similar controversy is in regard to the petitioner of Writ Petition No.26268 (S/S) of 2018, who has been awarded 65 marks and after supply of his scanned copy, he would have been awarded 80 marks, in Writ Petition No.26272 (S/S) of 2018, the petitioner has been awarded 61 marks and after supply of his scanned copy, he would have been awarded 91 marks, in Writ Petition No.26508 (S/S) of 2018, the petitioner has been awarded 66 marks and after supply of his scanned copy, he would have been awarded 80 marks. 
16. There are large number of writ petitions, complaining the same complaint in regard to the award of marks in the said examination proceedings, wherein candidates have been awarded 65 marks and their 3 to 4 questions have wrongly been examined and they have not been awarded marks accordingly. 
17. On perusal of the records of the said writ petitions and the leading writ petition of Sonika Devi, it is revealed that the awarding of marks to the candidates appears to be deliberate to defeat their right of selection. The allegations of corruption are made against the agency as well as against the examination conducting authorities, therefore, there exist justification for enquiry/investigation against the Officers involved in the entire selection proceedings. 
18. The 3 members committee was constituted to enquire into the corruption made in the selection proceeding of Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2018, but till date, even those candidates who have been found under scrutiny to be come within the zone of consideration, have not been selected. 
19. On perusal of the progress of enquiry report submitted by the 3 members committee, it is transpired that 2 of the members of committee belong to the Basic Education Department, therefore, under the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, both would not have been appointed members of the enquiry committee, wherein the Officers of the same department are under investigation in completion of free and fair enquiry in the matter. 
20. Allegations of rampant corruption and illegal selections have been levelled in the present selection proceeding. It is expected from the State Government to make free and fair selections. In the Basic Schools, there are complaints in wide-scale illegal selections with nefarious objective to fulfill political manifesto as well as to promote parochial menace in the services of the State and thereby blatantly violating the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. 
21. In the present selection proceeding, on perusal of the records made available, this Court is prima-facie satisfied that there is material evidence to establish that the examination conducting authorities have misused their power and to give undue advantage to the candidates of their choice, have entered into corrupt practices. The candidates who have been awarded lesser marks have been found to be awarded higher marks in the written examination and the answer-book of certain candidates have been torned and pages were changed to declare them to be failed so that candidates on considerations of the authorities may be selected. 
22. The agency which was hired by the State Government for bar coding had also accepted that copies of 12 candidates were changed, in spite of that acceptance, no criminal proceeding for making cheating in change of copies has been initiated against the agency till date. 
23. This Court cannot shut its eyes in permitting the large number of corruption to continue in the selection on the post of Assistant Teachers in such a manner, therefore, Court is satisfied that this is a case wherein investigation is required to be done by an independent agency. 
24. From almost last 20 years, in each and every selection proceeding conducted by the State Government or by the selection board or commission, it is seen that sometimes question papers are out, sometimes the officers who are involved in the selection proceeding have been found to be involved in corrupt practices, but in spite of that no strict action is taken and only to divert the mind of the candidates, certain enquiry committees have been constituted who have done nothing, therefore, time has come that this Court may proceed with foolproof process to investigate the process of selection, therefore, this Court is satisfied that the State Government only to save the skin of the officers involved have constituted 3 members committee to whom there are 2 officers who belong to the Basic Education Department to which recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers were held by holding the examination in 2018 and the committee did nothing. 
25. This Court is also prima-facie satisfied that there is a breach of trust of the candidates who have applied for under bonafide belief that there shall be free and fair selection proceeding for recruitment of Assistant Teachers as well as it is found that there are large number of deliberate and willful attempts in not awarding correct marks to the candidates appearing in the said recruitment process. 
26. This is an examination for providing employment in the State of Uttar Pradesh to the unemployed youth who are waiting since long to get employment in these hard days. 
27. India is a democratic country governed by a written constitution. It is the Constitution, which is supreme and sovereign. The Constitution is the suprema lex in this country. All organs of the State, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court derive their authority, jurisdiction and powers from the Constitution and owe allegiance to it. Highlighting the fundamental features of a federal Constitution. The essential characteristic of federalism is ''the distribution of limited executive, legislative and judicial authority among bodies which are coordinate with and independent of each other'. The supremacy of the Constitution is fundamental to the existence of a federal State in order to prevent either the legislature of the federal unit or those of the member States from destroying or impairing that delicate balance of power which satisfies the particular requirements of States which are desirous of union, but not prepared to merge their individuality in a unity. This supremacy of the Constitution is protected by the authority of an independent judicial body to act as the interpreter of a scheme of distribution of powers. 
28. It is trite that in the constitutional scheme adopted in India, besides supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary constitutes the basic features of the Constitution. 
29. There is a distinct and rigid separation of powers under the Indian Constitution. There is no doubt that the Constitution has entrusted to the judicature in the country the task of construing the provisions of the Constitution and of safeguarding the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. 
30. In the present case, when the fundamental rights, as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, which include the right to equality (Article 14); the freedom of speech [Article 19(1)(a)] and the right not to be deprived of life and liberty except by procedure established by law (Article 21), as alleged in the instant case, are violated, can their violation be immunised from judicial scrutiny on the touchstone of doctrine of separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. 
31. The Constitution is a living and organic document. It cannot remain static and must grow with the nation. The Constitutional provisions have to be construed broadly and liberally having regard to the changed circumstances and the needs of time and polity. 
32. The Constitution of India expressly confers the power of judicial review on the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 and on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 32 is the very soul of the Constitution. By now, it is well settled that the power of judicial review, vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts under the said Articles of the Constitution, is an integral part and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. 
33. In view of the above, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has power of judicial review being an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter of fact, such a power is essential to give practicable content to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of the Constitution. 
34. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is a sufficient material to exercise its Constitutional power of judicial review and direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. 
35. Under the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Central Bureau of Investigation is vested with wide powers of investigation regarding the issue of corruption adopted by the authorities who are involved in the selection proceedings in the recruitment examination of the post of Assistant Teachers, 2018. 
36. A query was made to the learned Advocate General that whether the State Government is ready to investigate the prima-facie corruption found on examination of records by the Central Bureau of Investigation or not, after grant of time to the learned Advocate General to seek instruction in the matter, he replied to the aforesaid query made by this Court that the State Government is not ready to hand over the investigation of the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2018 to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 
37. Therefore, this Court, under compelling circumstances, is issuing following direction: 
"The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation shall make investigation in regard to the entire process of selection initiated for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools against 68,500 posts, which is known as Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 initiated in pursuance to an advertisement dated 23.1.2018, taking into consideration the observation made in the order and the material taken notice by this Court and submit a report of the progress of the investigation in the matter to this Court on the date fixed. However, it is further directed that against the Officers who are found involved in corrupt practices, if any, necessary action in accordance with law be taken by the competent authority." 
38. It is directed that the Officers who were the part of the selection proceeding shall co-operate in the investigation and place the necessary documents required by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 
39. List this petition after three weeks on 26.11.2018. 
40. The Central Bureau of Investigation shall complete the investigation expeditiously, say within a period of 6 months from the date of pronouncement of this order. 

Order Date :-01.11.2018 
Gautam

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=6742292


 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 SOLVED PAPER - 2013

CTET SOLVED PAPER - 2013


Latest Updated Exam / Guess / Model Solved Papers - Answer Keys - http://syllabus123.blogspot.com/

Latest Updated Exam / Guess / Model Solved Papers - Answer Keys - http://syllabus123.blogspot.com/

Breaking News - त्रिपुरा के शिक्षा मित्र समान शिक्षकों की सर्विस 2 साल बढ़ाई सुप्रीम कोर्ट में, नियमित भर्ती में छूट देने व ट्रेनिंग देने को कहा- SC extends services of sacked Tripura government teachers

Breaking News - त्रिपुरा के शिक्षा मित्र समान शिक्षकों की सर्विस 2 साल बढ़ाई सुप्रीम कोर्ट में, नियमित भर्ती में छूट देने व ट्रेनिंग देने को कहा- 

SC extends services of sacked Tripura government teachers

NEW DELHI/AGARTALA: The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the services of sacked 10,323 

Tripura

government teachers by two more years, as appealed for by the state government, an official said.

"A bench headed by Chief Justice 

Ranjan Gogoi

 responding to the state government appeal, extended the services of the 10,323 government teachers for two more years. It also directed the Centre to consider giving relaxation in the matter of training and professional qualifications within four months," an official of Tripura's Law Department said.

He said the bench directed the state government to stick to the TET (Teachers' Eligibility Test) method of recruitment as well as to encourage job seekers to complete the required professional courses like B.Ed (Bachelor of Education).

 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
 

डिवीजन / डबल बेंच ने ख़ारिज की एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से अंतर जनपदीय ट्रांसफर याचिका No Transfer from Aspirational District : Court

डिवीजन / डबल बेंच ने ख़ारिज की एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से अंतर जनपदीय ट्रांसफर याचिका No Transfer from Aspirational District : Court


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

(Reserved) 
Court No. - 21 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 870 of 2018 
Appellant :- Smt. Shikha Singh And 24 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shailendra 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 861 of 2018 
Appellant :- Shritika Jaiswal And 10 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Mr. Ashok Khare 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 875 of 2018 
Appellant :- Meena Chandra 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 869 of 2018 
Appellant :- Alka Singh And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amal Darsingh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 868 of 2018 
Appellant :- Smt. Kshama Chaudhary And 2 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul) 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 871 of 2018 
Appellant :- Urmila Nagar And 4 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 860 of 2018 
Appellant :- Roshni Singh And 2 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 859 of 2018 
Appellant :- Antima Tiwari And 7 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Deo Dayal 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 883 of 2018 
Appellant :- Priyanka Shukla And 37 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 884 of 2018 
Appellant :- Priyanka Srivastava 
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 3 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Khare 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 905 of 2018 
Appellant :- Smt. Sonu Verma And 3 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Saxena 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 915 of 2018 
Appellant :- Beena Sharma And 2 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amal Darsingh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 882 of 2018 
Appellant :- Ranjana Singh And 20 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 693 of 2018 
Appellant :- Priyanka Singh And 24 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

with 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 724 of 2018 
Appellant :- Shalini Yadav And 16 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Kant Yadav,Ashutosh Dwivedi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 
(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J.) 
Judgment under challenge in these appeals is dated 13.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 14395 of 2018. 
Learned Single Bench under the judgment impugned arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners (appellants herein) working as Assistant Teachers in aspirational districts have no right for inter-districts transfer and, as such, they are not having any enforceable legal right to ask for a writ in the nature of mandamus to transfer them from the aspirational district to some other district. 
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants are working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the districts of Siddharth Nagar, Shrawasti, Behraich, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. The districts aforesaid are known as aspirational districts in light of the Government of India policy for "Transformation of Aspirational Districts, 2018". The policy aforesaid prescribes a programme of the Government of India incurred by NITI Aayog steering the initiative in several districts of the country which are "Left Wing Extremism" affected. 
In the programme aforesaid, the Government is committed to raise the living standards of its citizens and ensuring inclusive growth of all. To avail optimum utilization of the potential available, the programme focuses closely on improving people's ability to participate fully in the vibrant economy. The other areas of focus under the Programme aforesaid are health and nutrition, education, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusions, skill development and basic infrastructure. 
The Government of Uttar Pradesh under its conscious decision communicated vide Circular dated 10.06.2018 that no transfer of Assistant Teachers shall be made to other districts from 08 aspirational districts, namely, Siddhartha Nagar, Shrawasti, Behraich, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under the Circular dated 10.06.2018 issued by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Council, Allahabad, the appellants preferred petitions for writ those came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. 
While questioning correctness of the judgment dated 13.08.2018, several arguments have been advanced mainly focusing to the scope and nature of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1981") that reads as follows:- 
"21. Transfer - There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local 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." 
Suffice it to state that the Rules, 1981 were enacted by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Rules, 1981 regulate recruitment and other service conditions of all the teachers employed in Basic Education in the State. 
As per Clause (c) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, "Basic School" means a school wherefrom education from Class-I to Class-VIII are imparted. As per Clause (i) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, "Local area" means the area over which a Local Body exercises jurisdiction and under Clause (l) of the Rule aforesaid, "Selection Committee" means the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16. As per Rule 16, the Selection Committee for Selection of Candidates for Appointment to any post under the Rules, 1981 shall consist of (a) An officer of the rank of Additional District Magistrate nominated by District Magistrate - Chairman, (b) District Basic Education Officer - Member, (c) Principal, Government Girl's Intermediate College at the District Head Quarter - Member, (d) District Non-Formal Education Officer - Member, and (e) One specialist in Hindi, Urdu or other languages as the case may be; nominated by District Magistrate - Member. As per Clause (b) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule (2) the "Appointing Authority" to any post in service under the Rules, 1981 is District Basic Education Officer. 
Part II of the Rules, 1981 pertains to cadre and strength. Rule 4 of Rules, 1981 provides that there shall be a separate cadre of service under the Rules for each local area. The strength for a local area and the number of posts in the cadre shall be such as may be determined by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board from time to time with previous approval of the State Government. 
The provisions aforesaid clearly indicates that cadre of different posts under the Rules, 1981 shall be at district level. The resultant conclusion is that service under the Rules, 1981 is constituted at District level and, as such, Members of service cannot be transferred from one district to other as that would amount to change of cadre and even the Appointing Authority. 
Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981 is an exception to above as that permits transfer of a teacher appointed under the Rules, 1981 from the rural local area to urban local 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. Such transfer, however, can be made on request of or with the consent of teachers himself and in either case with the approval of the Board. 
Under the decision impugned, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has restrained application of the relaxation granted under the Rule 21 of Rules, 1981 for the aspirational districts. 
While challenging the decision aforesaid which has been upheld by learned Single Bench, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that restriction imposed is highly discriminatory as teachers working in the districts or the local areas other than the aspirational districts shall be having opportunity to be transferred as per Rule 21, but the teachers working in the aspirational districts would be deprived of that. It is also stated that all the appellants are women and they are working in the aspirational districts from last several years and now when they want their transfer to the district of their choice as per the provisions of the Rules, 1981, the respondents have decided not to operate Rule 21 qua them, as such, the same is highly unjust and arbitrary too. It is also urged that Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2008") shall prevail over the Rules, 1981 and Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 provides for inter-districts transfer and, as such, by a Government Order, application of Rule aforesaid could have not been dispensed with. It is also emphasized that Clause 6 of the existing Transfer Policy, the districts where vacancies against sanctioned posts are more than 15%, no inter-districts transfer of an Assistant Teacher shall be made. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board under its letter dated 06.02.2018 notified 40766 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools and 6719 Headmasters of Primary Schools/Assistant Teacher of Higher Basic School. As per Clause 3 of the Transfer Policy, inter-district transfer is to be made to the extent of 25% of the available vacancy only, as such, the transfer that is to be made from aspirational district to other shall be too less and negligible and that would not effect implementation of the Programme of 2018 adversely. 
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants. 
On going through the provisions applicable, we do not find any merit in these appeals. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981, on its face, does not create any substantive right in favour of the appellant-petitioners. Rule 21, as a matter of fact, provides a relaxation with necessary checks for transfer of a teacher from one district/local area to other district/local area, which is otherwise not permissible by statute. It is well settled that relaxation to rules in normal course cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 
In view of it, we are having no hesitation in affirming the finding given by learned Single Bench that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981 does not create any legally enforceable right in favour of the appellants. However, the issue under consideration is that whether denial of such relaxation to the Assistant Teachers working in aspirational districts shall be justifiable when the teachers working in the other districts are having choice to claim relaxation for their transfer from one district/local area to other district/local area. 
In other words, precisely, the issue before us is whether the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under the Circular dated 10.06.2018 is irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory, being not founded on a reasonable criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As already stated, the aspirational districts are the districts identified by the Government of India to meet extreme left upsurge in several districts of the country including 08 districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the Programme, the State Government is required to have intensive operations in the field of education, health, nutrition, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusions, skill development and basic infrastructure. To have such operations, need of teachers is highly desirable. Pertinent to notice that as per the Programme of the Government, a huge budget is assigned to the field of education and a complete transformation of socio economic status of the area is required to be made. The transformation is desired to be satisfied upto the year 2022. The Ministry of Human Resource Development under the Programme aforesaid has rendered several schemes for the aspirational districts. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has also taken initiatives for aspirational districts by making District Action Plan. The District Action Plan relates to different identified sectors including the education. To execute the programme aforesaid, need of teachers is essential and, looking to that, the Government has decided not to extend relaxation as per Rule 2 to the teachers working in aspirational districts. The decision of the Government, as such, is based upon reasonable criteria and that does not suffer from any such wrong that may be termed and treated as unjust or arbitrary. 
At the cost of repetition, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 is only a relaxation clause and that in no manner creates any substantive enforceable legal right sufficient to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus. 
So far as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 is concerned, suffice it to state that that too does not create any right in favour of the appellants. A plain reading of the Rule aforesaid makes it clear that this too is an exception to the general rule of not transferring a person from one district to other district in normal course. 
In light of whatever stated above, the appeals lack merit, hence the same are dismissed. 
Order Date :- 4.10.2018 
Shubham 

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)         (Govind Mathur, J.) 


 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
 

L'Oreal Paris Excellence Creme Hair Color (Natural Dark Brown 4) ₹441 25% of

L'Oreal Paris Excellence Creme Hair Color  (Natural Dark Brown 4)

₹441 

25% of

₹590

25% of

To Buy / See Details ->>>   Click Here 

Best Deal FLIPKART SNAPDEAL AMAZON on Mobile , Laptop and Other Clothing, Home Furnishing and Gift Accesories - http://flipkartsaleonline.blogspot.com Flipkart Best Deal

Flipkart Big Billion Day Sale on Mobiles 2018

Flipkart Big Billion Day Sale on Mobiles  2018

Navratri Dussehra Diwali 2018 Festival Offers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lenovo K8 Plus (Venom Black, 32 GB) (3 GB RAM)
#OnlyOnFlipkart
Extra ₹4000 discount
Price Rs 6,999
See here -> http://fkrt.it/MPM!M2NNNN

------------------------------------------------------
Apple iPhone 6s (Space Grey, 32 GB)
Extra ₹18901 discount
Price ₹23,999
http://fkrt.it/MLLtN2NNNN

-----------------------------------------------------------

Honor 9i (Aurora Blue, 64 GB) (4 GB RAM)

Extra ₹7000 discount
http://fkrt.it/M5dg02NNNN

------------------------------------------------------

Samsung Galaxy On6 (Black, 64 GB) (4 GB RAM)

#OnlyOnFlipkart
Extra ₹3500 discount

http://fkrt.it/jvb~MLuuuN

------------------------------------------------

Vivo V9 (Sapphire Blue, 64 GB) (4 GB RAM)

Extra ₹8000 discount
http://fkrt.it/HNPgCLuuuN

Best Deal FLIPKART SNAPDEAL AMAZON on Mobile , Laptop and Other Clothing, Home Furnishing and Gift Accesories - http://flipkartsaleonline.blogspot.com Flipkart Best Deal