Friday, September 7, 2012

KVS (Recruitment of Primary/TGT Teachers ) Stay Matter , Re Start of Process with Main Examination


KVS (Recruitment of Primary/TGT Teachers ) Stay Matter , Re Start of Process with Main Examination 


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA 764/2012                 6. OA 888/2012   11. OA 1137/2012
MA 629/2012       MA 735/2012         MA 1698/2012
MA 630/2012       MA 736/2012
MA 1696/2012       MA 1705/2012

OA 783/2012   7. OA 891/2012
MA 659/2012       MA 1695/2012
MA 1702/2012     
 
OA 824/2012   8. OA 920/2012
MA 688/2012       MA 772/2012
MA 1703/2012                   MA 1699/2012
 
OA 866/2012           9  OA 976/2012
MA 1704/2012                   MA 1697/2012
    
    5. OA 985/2012  10. OA 990/2012
        MA 1701/2012                    MA 1700/2012


New Delhi this the 25th day of July, 2012


Hon ble Mr. G.George Paracken, Member (J)
Hon ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)

OA No.764/2012

1. Shri Ravi Rai
S/o Shri Vinay Shanker Rai
R/o V-1-49-B, Budh Vihar Phase-I
Delhi.

2. Shri Lokesh Chaudhary
S/o Shri Surender Singh
R/o D-5, Ganesh Puri
Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad
Ghaziabad, U.P.

3. Ms. Bharti
D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma
R/o C-48, Budh Vihar, Tajpur Pahari
Badarpur, New Delhi.

4. Ms. Kanchan Sharma
D/o Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma
R/o 3444, Gali No.77,
Block E-2, Molar Band Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi.

5. Ms. Rinku
W/o Shri Devender Singh
R/o H.No.608, Near Primary School
Khera Khurd, Narela,
Delhi.

6. Ms. Monika Yadav
W/o Shri Sanjeev Yadav
R/o H.No.115, Naharpur
Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi.

7. Ms. Neerja
W/o Shri Nitin Sharma
R/o A-15, Rahuvir Enclave,
Najafgarh, Delhi . Applicants

Versus

1. Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi 110 016.

2. Joint Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi 110 016. . Respondents


OA No.783/2012

1. Devesh Nidhi Sharma
S/o Sh. Vinod Sharma
R/o 2/C Gali No.1 F-Block
Molarband Ext. Badarpur,
New Delhi-44.

2. Kavita Chaudhary,
D/o U.S. Chaudhary,
R/o H.No.133-A, Near Post Office
Garhi Pana, V&PO Bakhatawarpur
Delhi-36. -Applicants


Versus



1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.    -Respondents.


OA No.824/2012

 1. Smt. Ragini Sharma,
W/oKamal Arora Mohalla,
R/o Chanduwara Near Happy Novel Store,
Narnaul, Distt. M/Garg
Haryana.

2. Ms. Munni Yadav,
D/o Shri Chhail Singh Yadav,
R/o Gangariya Hospital, Near Petrol Pump,
Singhana Road, Narnaul,
Haryana.

3. Shri Rahul Kumar,
S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh,
R/o C-78-A, Gali No.8, Jyoti Colony,
Durgapuri Chowk, Shahdara,
Delhi.

4. Ms. Megha Gupta,
D/o Shri Umesh Gupta,
R/o 337-B, Hari Nagar, Ashram,
New Delhi.

5. Mrs. Babita Devi,
W/o Shri Anil Kumar,
R/o RZ P-3/II, New Roshanpura Extension,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.

6. Ms. Jyoti,
D/o Shri Santram,
R/o VPO Kanjhawala,
Delhi.

7. Ms. Priya Sehrawat,
D/o Shri Jagbir Singh,
R/o Village Tilanpur Kotla,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Applicants.

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016

2. Joint Commissioner (Admn.),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh marg,
New Delhi.
Respondents.
OA No.866/2012

1. Ms. Sonia,
W/o Shri Amit Kumar,
R/o H.No.36, Madangir Village,
New Delhi-62.
Applicant

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016

Respondents.
OA No.985/2012

1. Vivek Kumar Sharma
S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma
R/o Village Binderwara,
Post-Sikandra, The-Sikral,
District-Dausa, Rajasthan. -Applicant

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016

2. Joint Commissioner (Admn.),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh marg,
New Delhi-110016.
Respondents.
OA No.888/2012

1. Mrs. Shweta Saxena,
W/o Shri Nitin Saxena,
R/o C-1189, GF, IFFCO Colony,
Sector-17B, Gurgaon,
Haryana.

2. Mrs. Richa Saxena,
W/o Shri Rakesh Shrivastava,
R/o C-18, Shubham Enclave,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-63.

3. Shri Manoj Kumar,
S/o Shri Bhimpal,
R/o B-2/121, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.

4. Mrs. Sonia Devi,
d/o Shri Jaswant Singh,
R/o 125, Village Nayabans,
PO Khera Kalan,
Delhi.
Applicants.

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016

2. Joint Commissioner (Admn.),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh marg,
New Delhi.
Respondents.
OA NO.891/2012

Ajay Agarwal
S/o Shri Lal Chand Agarwal
Resident of
C/o Sh. Parveen Agarwal, 34,
Shastri Nagar, Dayal Bagh,
Ambala Cantt-133001. -Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.        -Respondent


OA No.920/2012

1.  Sujata
D/o Sh.Sukhbir Singh
Aged 24 years
Resident of H.No.106,
Village and PO Kanjhawala
Delhi 110 081

2. Ms. Amita Mathur
D/o Shri Harish Kumar
Aged 22 years
Resident of H. No.1;
Village and PO Karala
Delhi 110 081

3. Ms. Dimpy
D/o Shri Tika Ram
Aged 26 years
Resident of H.No.32A;
Village and PO Mitraon
Najafgarh
Delhi 110 043. .. Applicants

Versus

1. The Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi 110 016. .. Respondents

OA No.976/2012

Smt. Sunita Sharma
W/o Shri Inder Pal
R/o C-5/201
Sector-6, Rohini,
Delhi-110085. -Applicant

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
(An autonomous body under the Ministry of
 Human Resource Development),
 Through its Chairman having its office at:
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016

2. Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Government of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.  -Respondents

OA No.990/2012

Taruna Yadav
W/o Sh. Karan Yadav
R/o 70 A DDA LIG Flats
Mayakunj Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064. -Applicant

Versus

1. Union of India
Through Secretary, Ministry of HRD
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Joint Commissioner (Admn.),
18, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Institutional Area, New Delhi.
Respondents.

OA No.1137/2012

Raghwendra Kumar Dwevedi,
S/o Shri Nath Dwevedi,
R/o BSF Camp, Chhawla,
New Delhi-110073.  -Applicant

Versus


1. Union of India
Through Secretary, Ministry of HRD
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110062.

3. The Member Secretary,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110062.

4. The Joint Commissioner (Admn.),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110062. -Respondents

(By Advocate: Shri Pawanjit S. Bindra, for applicants in
OAs No.-985/12,764/12, 824/12, 866/12, 888/12.
         Shri Rambir Yadav, for applicant in OA No.783/12.
         Shri M.S. Ramalingam with Sh. C. Bheemenna, for
         Applicants in OAs No.891/12 & 920/12.
Shri K.G. Gopal Krishnan & Sh. Shyam Moorjani, for
         Applicant in OA No.976/12.
Shri Suresh Kr. Sharma, for applicant in OA
No.990/12.
Shri Shashi Shankar, for applicant in OA No.1137/12.

Shri S. Rajappa, for respondents in all the OAs).

O R D E R (Oral)

Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)

All these 11 cases have been listed above in the sequence of the dates of their filing.  They were listed together and came to be heard together and were allowed together on 25.07.2012 with the stipulation that detailed order will follow.  Hence they are being disposed of with this detailed order.  For the sake of convenience, the sequentially first case in OA No.764/2012 can be taken up for discussion regarding facts.  The prayers being more or less similar in all these 11 OAs, they can be illustrated by reproducing the prayers at clause 8 of the above O.A. No.764/2014 as follows:

(a) Set aside notice issued by the respondent in as much as it directs that the respondent would be conducting interview for the post of tgts (eng. hindi, sanskrit, maths, science and social studies) and PRT s for the year 2011-12 from 12.03.12 to 26.03.12 of candidates short listed for interview on the basis of marks obtained by them in CTET held on 26.06.11 and conducted by CBSE and for further directions to the respondent to appoint candidates to the post of TGT and PRT as stated above on the basis of advertisement issued inviting applications for the said posts i.e. on the basis of preliminary examination and main examination followed by the interview.  Allow the original application and direct that the Respondent would be conducting interview for the post of TGTs (Eng., Hindi, Sanskrit, Maths, Science and Social Studies) and PRT s for the year 2011-12 from 12.03.12 to 26.03.12 and the candidates have been short listed for interview on the basis of marks obtained by them in CTET held on 26.06.11 conducted by CBSE and direction directing the Respondent to appoint candidates to the post of TGT and PRT as stated above on the basis of advertisement issued inviting applications for the said posts i.e. on the basis of preliminary examination and main examination followed by the interview conducted by the respondent.


2. There are also Miscellaneous Applications filed in each of these OAs, for many applicants joining together as parties is an O.A., and all the M.A.s for joining together are allowed.

3. The applicants in these 11 OAs are aggrieved by a notice issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS, in short), fixing different cut off marks obtained in the Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET, in short) for selections to the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs, in short) in different subjects (English Hindi, Sanskrit, Maths, Science and Social Studies) and Primary Teachers (PRTs, in short), stating as follows:-

Sl.
No. Name of Posts Cut-off marks fixed by KVS in C.T.E.T. category wise    
1. TGTS Gen. OBC SC ST OH HH VH    
ENG. 104 98 92 83 96 98 85    
HINDI 98 95 89 89 88 93 90    
SANSKRIT 93 90 85 83 - - 104    
MATHS 101 93 87 86 99 - -    
SCIENCE 104 100 91 82 94 - -    
SOCIAL STUDIES 103 101 95 91 98 95 94    
2. PRTs 104 98 92 82 94 82  85  


4. The case of the applicants of these OAs is that the respondents could not have short-listed the candidates for the interview on the basis of the marks obtained in the CTET held on 26.06.2011, in violation of the advertisement issued by the respondent KVS notifying the recruitments for the posts of TGTs, PRTs and  Miscellaneous Teaching Posts which had been published in the Employment News of the week 30.10.2010-5.11.2010.  The details of the vacancies were given in the recruitment advertisement in a Tabular Form in respect of Post Code-31 (English), Post Cost-32 (Hindi), Post Code-33 (Social Studies), Post Code-34 (Science), Post Code-35 (Sanskrit), Post Code-36 (Maths), Post Code 51 (Librarian), Post Code-52 (Art Education), Post Code-53 (Work Experience), & Post Code-54 (Physical and Health Education), and that it gave the detailed break down of the total 559 vacancies in all the subjects, along with the prescription of the number of posts reserved for general category, SC,ST,OBC, Orthopedically Handicapped (OH, in short), Visually Handicapped (VH, in short) and Hearing Handicapped (HH, in short).  The essential qualifications for the Post Codes 31 to 36 were prescribed as follows:-


Post Code Post/Subjects Subject(s) Qualification on code   
31 TGT English English as an elective subject at Degree level     01   
32 TGT Hindi Hindi as an elective subject at Degree level     02   
33 TGT SST Any two of the following:
History, Geography, Economics and Political Science of which one must be either History or Geography.     03   
34 TGT Science Chemistry, Botany and Zoology    04   
35 TGT Sanskrit Sanskrit as an elective subject at Degree level    05   
36 TGT -  Maths Maths with any two of the following subjects: -
Physics/ Chemistry/ Electronics/ Computer Science/ Statistics    06
b)   B.Ed. or equivalent Degree from a recognized University.
c)   Proficiency in teaching in Hindi and English.
Desirable: Knowledge of Computer Applications.
(Emphasis supplied).

5. The essential qualifications in respect of the remaining Post Codes 51 to 54 are not being re-produced here for the sake of brevity, and also because no submissions were made by any applicants in regard to them.  The essential qualifications prescribed in respect of Post Codes 41 (Primary Teacher) Post Code-55 and (Primary Teacher-Music) are also not being re-produced here, since no submissions were made in regard to them also.

6. The detailed advertisement gave the details of Age Relaxation (Para-5), Examination Fee and Mode of Payment (Para-6), Guidance regarding how to apply (Para-7),  Mode of Selection and Scheme of Examination (Para-8), Schedule of Examination (Para-9), Examination Cities (Para-10) in which the Selection Examination was to be held, Reasons of Rejection (Para-11), and then the details regarding Last Date for Receipt of Applications (Para-12). No correspondence should be entertained into with the KVS (Para-13), and General Instructions regarding Examinations (Para-14), and the detailed format for application etc.  was given thereafter.  Out of this, apart from the essential qualifications for the Post Codes 31 to 36 re-produced above, it is essential to also re-produce below Para-8 of the said Advertisement, which stated as follows:-
8. MODE OF SELECTION AND SCHEME OF EXAMINATION 
The mode of selection shall include a written examination test/interview as per the following scheme of the examination:
i..  Preliminary Examination: The test will be an objective type multiple choices of answers consisting of 150 questions for a duration of 3 hours and will carry 1 mark each, in 2 parts, as per details mentioned below:
Part 1:    The Paper will consist of 110 Questions in the disciplines of General Knowledge, General Awareness, Current Affairs, General Science & Indian Constitution, Reasoning, Quantitative Aptitude and Teaching Aptitude etc. The medium of the question paper will be both English and Hindi
Part 2:    The Paper will consist of 40 Questions (20 questions based on English language and 20 questions based on Hindi language) for evaluation of language competence of the candidates which will be of qualifying in nature. However, the candidate will be expected to obtain 05 marks in English & Hindi separately as well as minimum 13 marks in this paper as a whole in order to qualify the test.
Note:-For the evaluation purpose there shall be no negative marking.
ii.  Main Examination : Based on the marks and merit rank secured by a candidate in Part-I of the  Preliminary Examination, up to a cut off percentage as decided by KVS and those candidates who qualify in Part-2 will be called for the Main Examination.  This will be of Descriptive Type Paper consisting of 120 marks for a duration of 3 hours. The medium of the question paper will be both English and Hindi (except Language papers i.e. English, Hindi)
This examination will consist of long, medium and short answer questions pertaining to subject/posts for which a candidate has applied. The questions may be recall type questions to test the conceptual understanding of the topics. A few questions on drawing interpretations from given raw data and some situational questions may also be asked to test the analytical ability and intelligence of the candidates
iii       Interview Test : While processing the final result only those candidates will be included who have obtained a pre determined cut off percentage of marks in the Main Examination. Only those candidates will be called for the interview who has secured merit rank based on the performance (above cut off percentage).
The candidate will be interviewed by a Board who will have before them a record of his career. He will be asked questions on matters of general interest and on the subject pertaining to the post applied for. The object of the interview is to assess the personal suitability of the candidate for a career in teaching profession by a Board of competent and unbiased observers. The test is intended to judge the mental caliber and communication skill of a candidate.
Some of the qualities to be judged are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, and balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, leadership, intellectual and moral integrity.
The technique of the interview is not that of a strict cross-examination but of a natural, through directed and purposive conversation which is intended to reveal the mental qualities of the candidate.
The interview test is not intended to be a test either of the specialized or general knowledge of the candidates which has been already tested through their written papers. Candidates are expected to have taken an intelligent interest not only in their special subjects of academic study but also in the events which are happening around them both within and outside their own state or country as well as in modern currents of thought and in new discoveries which should arouse the curiosity of well educated youth/informed citizen.
The final merit will be based on the combined performance in the written test and interview and the weightage shall be 80:20 respectively.  However, the weighted evaluation scheme in respect of misc. category of teachers such as Music teacher shall be: Written Test 50%; Performance Test 30%; and Interview 20%.

7. The applicants have pointed out that even before this Notification was issued by the KVS, the Parliament had enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which had been given ascent to by the Hon ble President of India.  Thereafter, through Gazette of India Notification filed as Annexure A-4 in OA No.920/2012, under the residuary Constitutional powers of Union of India for making Statutory Rules, S.O. No.750 (E) dated 31.03.2010 was Gazette notified.  Through this S.O., in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section-1 of Section-23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Central Government had authorized the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE, in short) as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher.  Thereafter, through Gazette Notification dated 23.08.2010, produced as Annexure A-5, in OA No.920/2012, the NCTE had laid down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher in Classes I-VIII in a school, referred to in  clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.  It laid down the qualifications for Teachers for teaching Classes I-V separately, and for teaching Classes VI-VIII separately, as follows:-
1. Minimum Qualifications:-

(i) CLASSES I V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El. Ed.)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(ii) Classes VI-VIII

(a) B.A/B.Sc and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)

OR

B.A/B.Sc with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El. Ed)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed.

OR

B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education:- For the purposes of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed (Special Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3. Training to be undergone :- A person-

(a) with B.A/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January,2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education.

(b) with D.Ed (Special Education) or B.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme in Elementary Education .
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Later on, these minimum qualifications were revised by the NCTE through a Gazette Notification issued  11 months later, on 29.07.2011, stating the minimum qualifications to be as follows:-
1. Minimum Qualifications :-

(i) Classes I V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2002.

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
OR

Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary (by whatever name known)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(II) Sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the principal Notification shall be substituted, namely :

1 (ii) Classes VI VIII

(a) Graduation and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR

Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR

Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./ B.Sc.Ed. or B.A. Ed./ B.Sc.Ed.

OR

Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education)
AND

(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(III) Para 3 of the principal Notification shall be substituted namely:-

(i) Training to be undergone A person -

(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special programme in Elementary Education ;

(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment an NCTE recognized 6-month Special programme in Elementary Education .

9. The whole purpose of the NCTE being appointed as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher, and for allowing it to prescribe those qualifications, and to supervise the conduct of the CTET, through the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE, in short), was that the implementation of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, required the sudden and immediate recruitment of a large number of teachers across the country in a time bound manner, in unforeseen numbers, and still it was essential to ensure that the quality requirement for recruitment of teachers is not diluted at any cost.  It was also necessary to ensure that the persons recruited as Teachers possessed the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the Primary (I-V classes) and Upper Primary (VI-VIII classes) levels. For the conduct of the CTET, the Rules filed at Annexure A-6 in OA No.920/2012 were notified, called as the Central Teacher Eligibility Test Rules, 2011 , for governing the test to be conducted on 26.06.2011.  
10. The case of the applicants is that when the respondent KVS had issued its Advertisement for Recruitment for the posts of TGTs, PRTs and Miscellaneous Teaching Posts for the year 2011-12 through Annexure A-2, the Gazette Notification dated 23.08.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications for Teachers to teach primary classes I-V and Upper Primary Classes VI-VIII had already been Gazette notified, which the KVS was fully aware of.  However, in their detailed 12 page Advertisement as published in the Employment News dated 30.10.2010, as cited and described above, and in particular in Para-8 Mode of Selection and Scheme of Examination , no reference whatsoever was made by the KVS to either NCTE or to the CTET, even though the Gazette Notification dated 23.08.2010 was already in place in this regard, before the issuance of the KVS Advertisement. When the respondent KVS woke up to this, through their letter dated 20.04.2011, after the Preliminary Examination/Screening Test held by the respondent KVS on 12.02.2011 had already been conducted as per Para-8 (i) cited above, the respondent KVS issued a similarly worded letter to all the candidates who had qualified in the Preliminary Screening  Test Examination stating as follows:-
Dear Candidates,

With reference to your application for the post of TGT/Primary Teacher in the KVS, you are hereby informed that you have qualified the screening test held on 12th February, 2011.  Now, as per the provisions of sub-section (i) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Govt. of India vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 has laid down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher to teach classes I to VII.  According to the said Notification, for appointment as a teacher the candidate should pass the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), which will  be conducted by appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The Govt. of India has entrusted the responsibility of conducting the Central Teacher Eligibility Test(CTET) to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) which will be applicable to the KVS also.

You are, therefore, required to apply & qualify the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) scheduled to be held on 26th June, 2011 as per the terms and conditions of the Central Board of Secondary Education published in the Newspaper dated 08th April, 2011 to become eligible for the main examination being conducted by the KVS for the said post.

You are, further, advised to submit a copy of your marks sheet of CTET along with your Roll No. allotted to you for appearing in the Preliminary Examination and Post applied for to The Deputy Commissioner (Admn.), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016 by Registered/Speed Post within 15 days of the declaration of CTET result so that you may be considered for Main Examination .

(Emphasis in para-3 above supplied)
11. This letter  had been issued by the respondent KVS after having deferred the conduct of the Main Examination, which had been already notified to be scheduled on 09.04.2011, as per Para-9 (b) of the Recruitment Notification.  The case of the applicants is that as per the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the CTET to be conducted on 26.6.2011 was only a mandatory requirement as per the appropriate law, and the subordinate Legislation issued thereunder, and was to be considered only as a test of eligibility for appointment as a Teacher to teach Primary Classes (I-V) or Upper Primary Classes (VI-VIII), and could not have been considered as a replacement for the Main Examination already notified to be conducted by the respondent-KVS through Para-8 (ii) of their Recruitment Notification.
12. The further case of the applicants is that since the process of recruitment had already been set in motion by respondent KVS, by the conduct of the Preliminary Examination/Screening Test of 12.02.2011, thereafter the remaining  process of conduct of the Main Examination, and the conduct of the Interview Test thereafter by the KVS, as per the Recruitment Notification already issued, could not have been dispensed with by the respondent-KVS.  The applicants have no objection with the respondent-KVS having prescribed an additional statutory requirement of qualifying the CTET, which was conducted on 26.06.2011, and which apparently  all the applicants have passed, as they accept it as an additional statutory requirement.  However, they are aggrieved that while they have on their part shown their willingness to fulfil the additional statutory requirement of appearing at the CTET and qualifying the same, the respondents have changed the Rules of the game in between the process of selection in the Scheme of Examination as already notified and already set in motion, by cancelling the Main Examination scheduled to be conducted by them, and notifying through the impugned notice dated 28.02.2012 that the interviews will now be conducted by the KVS only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the CTET held on 26.06.2011, with arbitrary cut off marks being decided for TGTs in different subjects. 
13.  Heard the cases in detail.  It was pointed out by the learned counsels for the applicants that under the CTET Rules, under Rule 5.1 dealing with Minimum Qualifications for teaching the Primary Classes (I-V), passing the CTET with 50% or 45% marks has been prescribed, along with relaxation of 5% qualifying marks for SC/ST  and differently abled  candidates, and similarly the minimum qualification for qualifying CTET to become a teacher for Upper Primary Classes (VI-VIII) is also only passing, with at least 50% or 45% of marks, as prescribed under Rule-5.2, with 5% relaxation in qualifying marks for SC/ST and differently abled candidates.  It is the case of the applicants that there is no concept in the CTET Rules, 2011, for marks above 50% obtained by any candidate to be considered for any purposes whatsoever, as the only requirement for passing the CTET is appearing at the examination, and qualifying it with 50%/45% of marks as prescribed.  Therefore, the submission of the applicants is that the respondent KVS was at fault in prescribing different cut off marks obtained on the basis of the CTET conducted by the CBSE for recruitment as TGTs for different subjects, which could not have been the basis for recruitment of teachers for KVS.
14. One very relevant point was mentioned by the learned counsel of OA-620/2012 while arguing the case that in the Scheme of CTET, Mathematics and Science Teachers have been combined in a single category for the conduct of the CTET Examination.  It was pointed out that this is entirely in conflict with the essential qualifications as prescribed in Para-2(a) of the Recruitment Advertisement published by the respondent KVS, as per the Table reproduced in para-4/above, in which, for TGT Science posts the knowledge of subjects of Chemistry, Botany and Zoology is required, and for the posts of TGT-Maths, the  essential  qualification  of  Maths with any two of the given subjects-Physics/Chemistry/Electronics/Computer Science/Statistics, has been prescribed by the respondent KVS, which separation of Maths from Science has not been prescribed under CTET.
15. It was further pointed out that the structure and content of CTET, as notified, prescribes that the Paper-I of the Examination, for eligibility for teaching Primary Classes (I-V), will be that only 30 marks questions out of total 150 marks being prescribed in respect of Mathematics Teachers, and under Regulation 6.2 in respect of Paper-II, eligibility for teaching Upper Primary Classes (VI-VIII), only 60 marks questions  for Mathematics and Science to be asked in the paper out of 150 marks.  The learned counsel for the applicants had submitted that this can mean that even a person with very low marks in Mathematics, or even without Mathematics as his main subject, can become qualified to be a Mathematics Teacher for Primary Classes, or a Mathematics and Science Teacher for Upper Primary Classes, if passing/qualifying at the CTET is the only prescribed criteria for facing the Interviews, and then ultimately, the selection as TGTs in respondent-KVS.
16. It was further pointed out that on the other hand, the respondent KVS has always followed the system that a TGT (Maths) should have full proficiency in Mathematics, and that is why the required qualification for the Post Code-36 TGT (Maths), as re-produced in para-4/above, makes it compulsory for Maths being an elective subject at degree level with any two of the other given subjects.  It was, therefore, contented by the learned counsel for the applicants of OA No.920/2012, that because of this discrepancy/lacuna, by no stretch of imagination can the CTET ever be a replacement test for recruitment of TGTs, as has been sought to be prescribed by the respondent KVS through their impugned Notification dated 28.02.2012.  In fact, Para-8 of the CTET Rules prescribes that candidates securing 60% and above marks will be issued the CTET Certificate, and since the weightage of Mathematics in Paper-I is only 30 marks out of 150, and weightage for Mathematics and Science put together in Paper-II of CTET is only 60 marks out of 150, it is theoretically possible for a candidate to secure more than 60% marks on the basis of knowledge of other things and obtain a CTET Certificate, and then claim appointment to be a Mathematics Teacher or a Science Teacher with the respondent KVS, without adequate proficiency in Maths and/or Science, if the impugned Notification dated 28.02.2012 is not struck down in toto.

17. According to the applicants, the respondent KVS had actually tried to adopt a short cut.  While marks above 60% in CTET do not hold any meaning, whatsoever, once the eligibility for issuance of CTET Certificate has been established, the impugned Notification dated 28.02.2012 went beyond that prescription,  and as reproduced in the Table in Para-3/above, while retaining 60% marks in respect of Sanskrit Teachers, in OBC category and Hindi Teachers of Visually Handicapped category, for all the other categories, the respondent KVS had fixed arbitrary cut off marks of CTET to be the basis for conducting the interviews scheduled to be held from 12th March to 26th March 2012.
18. These 11 OAs were filed on various dates from 05.03.2012 onwards till 03.04.2012. When the first case OA-754/2012 was listed before the Bench for admission for the purpose of issuance of notices, a Coordinate Bench issued the following interim orders on 06.03.2012:-
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant.

The grievance of the applicants is that instead of following the recruitment process as stipulated in the advertisement, respondents are resorting to another mode thereby making appointment based upon the cut of marks obtaining on the basis of Central Teacher Eligibility Test, which was not permissible.  We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the applicant. We are of the view that the applicants have made out prima facie case for the grant of interim stay.  Accordingly, respondents are directed to permit the applicants to appear provisionally in the aforesaid interview commencing from 12th March 2012 to 26th March 2012, provisionally, till the next date of hearing. It is also made clear that the respondents shall not make any appointment based upon the aforesaid interview save and except with the prior approval of this Tribunal.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 20.03.2012.
Issue DASTI .
   (Emphasis supplied).
19. The interviews were thereafter still conducted by the respondents from 12th March to 26th March 2012, as scheduled, but it transpired during the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants of all these OAs had refused to attend the interview, even though, according to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench on 06.03.2012, cited above, they had been allowed to appear in the interview provisionally.  Detailed arguments on behalf of the applicants clarified their standpoint, as has already described in detail above.
20. During the arguments, learned counsels for the applicants submitted that while the applicants could have been asked to appear at the CTET as a qualifying examination, but that the marks of the CTET could not have been used as a replacement for the marks of the Main Examination, which had already been notified to be conducted by the respondent KVS.  In support of their contentions, learned counsels for the applicants had cited the case of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 in which in Para-15, the Hon ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
15 There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.
 (Emphasis supplied).


21. Also, the Hon ble Apex Court had cited with approval the case of  K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841,  in Para-14 of the judgment, extracts of which judgment can be re-produced as follows:-
.We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview."

      (Emphasis supplied).
22. The learned counsels had, therefore, tried to state that if any change in the selection criteria had to be given effect to, it had to be done before the commencement of the selection process, and adding any additional requirement, or prescribing any minimum marks, during the selection process or after the selection process has commenced is illegal, as the criteria for completion of selection process cannot be changed when the selection process has already started and proceeded on a notified basis.  The learned counsels for the applicants also cited the paragraphs 24 to 28 of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu Jharkhand & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. with other connected cases in Writ Petition (S ) No.3099 of 2011 decided on 22.11.2011, which concerned the case of CTET itself.  The Hon ble High Court has in Paragraphs 24 to 28 of its judgment stated as follows:-

24. The core question is that whether all the above could have been changed from the original process of selection and appointment started vide notification dated 26.03.2011? For this we take help from the judgement cited by the learned counsel for the State itself i.e., State of Bihar and Others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar reported in (2010) 13 SCC 467 wherein after considering various judgements of the Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that we all say in one voice that the norms and rules as existing on the dates when the process of selection begins will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process. Learned counsel for the State submitted that this proposition has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this very judgment by making it clear that unless specifically the same (amendment in rules) were given retrospective effect. Here in this case, the clarification which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the State has no application inasmuch as it has not been shown that any of the Rule has been made applicable retrospectively so as to make this selection process guided by any retrospectively operative Rules or retrospective amendment of the Rules. Rather say, the judgment only applies to the extent that the process of selection is required to be controlled and governed by the Rules which were existing at the time of start of selection process. We find support to our view from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 724. In the said case, after holding that the subsequent amendment of the rules which was prospective, cannot be made retrospective so as to make the selection on the basis of the rules which were subsequently amended, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if this was to be done then the only course left open was to recall the advertisement and issue fresh advertisement according to the Rules which had come into force. In the case of Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 627 and in yet another judgment delivered in the case of N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157, it has been observed that where selection process has been initiated by issuing an advertisement inviting applications selection should normally be regulated by the Rule or Order then prevailing and also when advertisement expressly states that appointment shall be made in accordance with the existing Rule or Orders, subsequent amendment in the existing Rule or Order will not affect the pending selection process unless contrary intention is expressly or impliedly indicated. A similar view has been taken in the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11, in the case of Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637. 

25. Not only this, the question papers have been changed, marking pattern has been changed, criteria for selection and requirement of obtaining minimum marks have also been changed, furthermore, a communication has been sent on 11.10.2011 by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources and Development Department of the State to Chair-person, Jharkhand Academic Council, conveying that the State Government has, by this decision, decided that the candidates selected in preliminary test shall be entitled to appointment and he will not have to face the main examination as notified in the original advertisement and required by Rules of 2002. Therefore, by this change, the preliminary test has been converted, not only into final test but created a right to appointment on the post. In this situation, the argument of learned counsel Sri R. Krishna that preliminary test or TET is not selection process for appointment cannot survive. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that a person could have succeeded in preliminary examination if he would have obtained a lower marks i.e., 35% of 30% marks in the language subjects but without amending rules, all those who may have got these marks have been deprived to appear in the final examination as the persons who secured marks less than 60 % have been declared failed. Therefore, a stringent criteria has also been prescribed.

26. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State has not yet taken any decision (though copy of the communication dated 11.10.2011 is on record) because, for taking such decision, the Rule will require to be amended and today the State is not in a position to give any appointment to successful candidates because the Rule has not been amended to dispense with the main examination. Then in fact, as per law existing today, the State has no right to give any appointment even to the candidates who have been declared successful in the examination because of the plain and simple reason that the successful candidates faced the examination only under the advertisement dated 26.03.2011, then they can be only successful candidates for preliminary and not for main examination but at the same time the examination were not in accordance with rules or as per the advertisement dt. 26.3.2011, therefore, the successful candidates cannot be declared successful candidates even for preliminary test for Teachers appointment. It appears that the State took the decisions time to time and thereafter, tried to become wise and issued various notices and advertisements which is apparent from the fact that in spite of having condition of TET for appointment on the post of teachers, the State proceeded to advertise huge number of vacancies running in about 18,000 and invited applications of 1,31,000 candidates from entire State. Then State became wise when it received the guidelines on 06.04.2011 and issued another notice instead of withdrawing the process of selection itself and tried to make the conditions of original appointment in consonance with the guidelines issued by the NCTE. At that time also, there was no decision that the candidates who will appear in this combined or common test for TET and for selection and appointment shall not have to go for main examination and then on 11.10.2011 it has been conveyed to the Jharkhand Academic Council that the State (without amending the Rules of 2002) has taken decision to give appointment to such selected candidates directly on the post without there being completion or having the main examination and now the State's stand is that such decision has not yet attained finality and not became the part of the Rule. Therefore, till today nobody knows how these selected candidates will be dealt with and these selected candidates are under illusion that they are about to get the appointment order whereas, the candidates who were declared successful were not successful candidates either under rules which are in existence today nor as per advertisement conditions.

27.In view of the above reasons, we found from the facts of the case that nothing survives in the advertisement dated 26.03.2011 in view of the subsequent acts and actions of the State Government except misleading the all candidates who appeared in the examination which is said to be 1,31,000 in numbers.

28. We tried to explore the possibility of saving the interest of the candidates who secured good marks in the examination but it is difficult in view of the fact that the examination itself was contrary to Rules. Process of selection which should be transparent, known to all and thereafter there must be a fair competition which, in the facts of the case, is totally missing and therefore, we have no option but to declare the entire process taken after the issuance of advertisement dated 26.03.2011, to be absolutely illegal, null and void . 
(Emphasis supplied).

23. It was submitted that an SLP had also been filed before the Hon ble Apex Court in this case, but the same had been dismissed, and, therefore, this judgment had become final.
24. The crux of the matter lies in the testing of the level of competence of a person for the purposes of teaching, and as to with what level of competence, which level of classes he can be entrusted with to teach.  The whole Scheme of CTET deals with the requirements of mass recruitment of Teachers for the purposes of the Right to Education Act, 2009, for teaching the Lower Primary Classes   (I-V) and Upper Primary Classes (VI-VIII), mostly in the Rural schools.  The level of papers set for Paper-I and/or Paper-II of the CTET can never compare with the higher level of competence and teaching abilities, and deeper knowledge of the concerned subjects, as has so far been required in the elite group of KV Schools, run by the respondent KVS.  KV Schools have so far had the reputation of being better than even the Private schools and Convent schools in their level and standards of teaching, and maintenance of discipline.  Therefore, the level of competence of the teaching community available in the KV Schools run by the respondent KVS cannot be allowed to be diluted by diluting the standards for selection of the Teachers.

25. The respondents may have taken the decision to adopt the marks of CTET in place of conducting the declared Main Examination, which had been proposed to be held by them, not only in order to save them time and costs, but that was only an after thought.  As is quite apparent from the highlighted portion Para-3 of the letter dated 20.04.2011 issued by the respondent KVS, (reproduced in para-10/above), even upto that stage of April 2011, the intention of the respondent KVS was only to get the candidates before them to fulfill the statutory requirement of passing CTET, and for that they had to ask the candidates who had qualified in the Preliminary Examination/Screening Test held on 12.02.2011 to also apply for, appear at, and qualify the CTET scheduled to be held by the CBSE on 26.11.2011, thereby becoming eligible for the Main Examination to be conducted subsequently by the KVS for the advertised posts.    Therefore, it is obvious that even as on the date of 20.04.2011, there was no intention on the part of the respondent KVS to do away with the Main Examination, the conduct of which had been notified in the Recruitment Notification advertisement itself, at Para-8(ii), as re-produced in para-6/above.  The direction to the candidates, who had already qualified at the Preliminary Examination/Screening Test held on 02.02.2011, to apply for, appear at, and qualify the CTET (i.e. with 60% marks as per Rule-8 of the CTET Rules, 2011), was only prescribed and felt necessary so that the statutory requirement of the Right to Education Act could be met by the Teachers selected for the respondent KVS also.
26. The respondents have not disclosed at any stage, neither in their reply written statement, nor in their oral submissions, as to why, and when, and how their stand changed after 20.04.2011,  when through their letter issued on that date, they had only added a second tier of eligibility qualification of CTET being cleared by the candidates in between the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination to be conducted by them for the purposes of selection of Teachers in response to the Recruitment Advertisement concerned.
27. While there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants that the Rules for the Recruitment Notification cannot be changed once the process of recruitment has started, as per the law, as laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of - N.T. Bevin Katti & Ors. vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors, (1990) 3 SCC 157, they cannot also assail the issuance of the letter dated 20.04.2011, which was issued only for the concerned candidates to be able to fulfill a statutory requirement, because of a law freshly passed by the Parliament, and the Rules/Subordinate Legislation thereunder, notified after the process of recruitment had started, and was necessarily required to be fulfilled.   Therefore, it is held that prescribing the requirement of qualifying CTET was not a deviation, which could be hit by the findings of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of N.T. Bevin Katti & ors (supra).   However, doing away with the Main Examination to be conducted by the KVS, as already notified through the Recruitment Advertisement, and straightaway going ahead to the Interview Test stage, only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in an external examination of CTET conducted by an external body,  CBSE, had resulted in a deviation from the notified Rules of Recruitment, which would be squarely hit by the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in N.T. Bevin Katti (supra).
28. During the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents had also offered that the Respondent KVS was prepared to hold the Main Examination for the applicants of these OAs, or in the alternative, even do away with the requirement of the holding of the Main Examination for the applicants of these OAs also, and straightaway go to the stage of the conduct of fresh interviews for the applicants of these 11 OAs.  He further made a submission that if the applicants of these OAs had an apprehension that such a fresh interview now would only be a sham, and they would all be disqualified in such a sham interview, the respondent KVS was prepared to concede before this Tribunal to even order an outside agency to conduct the interviews for the applicants of these 11 OAs, the results of which interviews would be acceptable to the respondent KVS.  However, learned counsels for the applicants of these 11 OAs pointed out that this exercise was meaningless, since as per the Scheme of the Recruitment Advertisement, 80% weightage has to be given to the marks obtained in the Main Examination, and only 20% weightage has to be given to the marks obtained in the interview.  It was further submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court has held that there could be no selection by interview if disproportionate marks have been prescribed for the purposes of interview, and that the rest of the marks in any selection process have to be based on either a departmental examination, or any other process, and that the weightage for interview marks cannot be disproportionate in order to avoid any favouritism at the stage of interview.
29. It was also pointed out by the learned counsels for the applicants that if the offer or concession offered by the learned counsel for the respondent KVS during the arguments, of holding a Main Examination or a direct interview in respect of the present applicants by an outside body was accepted, it would result in two different sub sets of people being created, one sub set consisting of the persons/candidates already interviewed from 12th March to 26th March, 2012 on the basis of the cut off marks obtained by them in the CTET conducted by the CBSE, and the second sub-set consisting of the applicants in the present 11 OAs, to be selected on the basis of the marks obtained in the Main Examination or direct interview by outside agency, now offered to be conducted by the respondent KVS. It was submitted that equity would not be maintained in such a case, because the first sub-set of the persons already interviewed from 12th March to 26th March, 2012, could not, in any way, be equated with the second sub-set, consisting of the present applicants who were being offered a different route or mode of selection for the same recruitment, which was abhorrent to law.
30. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the persons interviewed by the respondent KVS from 12th March to 26th March 2012 have not been made an opposite party respondent in any of these 11 OAs, and not even a few representatives from among them have been arrayed as opposite party respondents in any of the present OAs.  In saying so, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Rekha & Ors vs. Union of India and Ors. 137 (2007) DLT 299,  which reads as under:- 
8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC-pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals (CAs Nos. 1726-28 of 2001) arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for degree is totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers. We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed. candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal.
Thus, the respondent No. 2 was within its powers in prescribing B.Ed. as an educational qualification and the CAT has erred in quashing the advertisement.
b) The respondents No. 3 to 5 have admittedly participated in the selection process and after being unsuccessful have challenged the qualification and the selection process without impleading the successful candidates. Therefore, this petition is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case All India SC and ST Employees' Association v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors. . The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
13. Although the candidates included in the panel showing their provisional selection do not get vested right to appointment, they will be surely interested in protecting and defending the select list. It is the admitted position that before the Tribunal the successful candidates whose names were included in the panel of selection were not made parties. The argument of the learned Counsel that since the names and particulars of the successful candidates included in the panel were not given, they could not be made parties, has no force. The applicants before the Tribunal could have made efforts to get the particulars; at least they ought to have imp leaded some of the successful candidates may be in a representative capacity; if the large number of candidates were there and if there was any difficulty in service of notices on them, they could have taken appropriate steps to serve them by any one of the modes permissible in law with the leave of the Tribunal. This Court in Prabodh Verma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. has held that in writ petitions filed against the State questioning the validity of recruitment of a large number of persons in service could not be proceeded with to hear and take decision adverse to those affected persons without getting them or their representatives imp leaded as parties. In para 50 of the said judgment, summarizing the conclusions this Court in regard to impleading of respondents has stated that:
A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.
14. This Court in para 4 of the judgment in A.M.S. Sushanth and Ors. v. M. Sujatha and Ors. has stated thus:
We find that none of the persons who were selected and whose appointments were set aside by the High Court had been imp leaded as a party-respondent. It appears that a public notice was given in a representative capacity only with regard to the appointment to the post of Assistant Sericulture Officer. The direction of the High Court, however, is not confined to that post alone and it is the appointments to he other posts also which have been set aside. This could not be done. The principles of natural justice demanded that any person who was going to be adversely affected by the order should have had an opportunity of being heard. That apart, one would have expected the High Court to have considered the report submitted under Section 65 on its merits and then decided whether the said report should be accepted or not.
c) The CAT has failed to appreciate that though under the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools), Regulations 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') have been framed for recruitment of teachers it only prescribes the minimum academic and professional qualification. There is no bar under the Act or the Rules which prescribe any other qualification in addition to the minimum qualification prescribed in the regulation. In the advertisement, the candidates possessing B.Ed. were also made eligible for applying to the post of primary teacher. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to apply and be considered to the said post . 
       (Emphasis supplied).
31. But it appears to us that this judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court does not assist the cause or the case of the respondent-KVS.  It is imperative that they ought to have only a single policy to be followed for the recruitments planned to be made by them through the Recruitment Advertisement, and they cannot create two sub-sets of candidates for the same process of recruitment.  After passing the first Preliminary Examination conducted by KVS, only a single class or set of Preliminary Examination qualified candidates had been created.  The others as well as the applicants of these O.As had acquired as much right to appear at the Main Examination and the Interviews to be conducted by the KVS, equal to that of those who were allowed to appear at the Interviews held in March, 2012, in respect of some candidates, without holding the Main Examination already notified to be conducted by the KVS, before short-listing candidates for the Interviews.  Therefore, in terms of the settled law in this regard, the present applicants not impleading those persons who were Interviewed by the KVS in March, 2012, cannot be held to be fatal to these O.As, as all of them belong to the single class or set of Preliminary Examination qualified candidates, with equal vested rights, if any, to appear at the Main Examination and the Interviews.

32. It is further clear  from the Scheme of the two Examinations, the CTET as conducted by the NCTE, and the Main Examination as was notified to be conducted by the respondent-KVS before the start of the selection procession, that the two are not on all fours with each other. This aspect had been most forcefully brought out by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants for the posts of TGT (Maths), who had pointed out that in the Table as reproduced in para-4/above, for the Main Examination for recruitment for the posts of TGT (Science) required Chemistry, Botany and Zoology, and for the posts TGT (Maths) required Maths with any two of the subjects like Physics/Chemistry/Electronics/Computer Science/Statistics, while the CTET combines the selection for the Science and Mathematics Teachers to be together. Therefore, passing of CTET can at best be termed to be a minimum qualification or a condition precedent, but not the sufficient qualification, and the respondents cannot be allowed to base their judgment regarding the selection of Teachers by downgrading the Educational standards from what was prescribed at the beginning of the selection process. Therefore, it is held that CTET could not have been and cannot be a substitute of the Main Examination already notified to be held as per Rule-8 (ii) of the Recruitment Advertisement.

33. In the result, the interviews held from 12.03.2012 to 26.03.2012 by the respondent-KVS, only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates of the CTET, cannot be held to have been conducted within the notified Scheme as per the Recruitment Advertisement-cum-vacancy notification issued by the respondents at the beginning of the selection process in the Employment News of the week 30.10.2010 to 05.11.2010.  An examination which prescribes 60% or 50% etc. as the passing marks, but does not give due weightage to any higher marks obtained by candidates above that, and it is stated to be and meant to be only as a qualifying examination for appointment of Primary Teachers and Upper Primary Teachers, cannot provide the sole criteria of marks for selection of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in the respondent-KVS.

34. Accordingly, all the OAs are allowed, and the interviews held in March, 2012 are declared to be illegal. The respondents are directed to re-start the process of selection, by conducting the already notified Main Examination, allowing all the candidates who had applied for the relevant posts against the Recruitment Advertisement-cum-vacancy notification, and had passed the Preliminary Examination/Screening-Test conducted by the Respondent-KVS on 10.02.2011, and have also thereafter passed and qualified at the statutorily prescribed CTET held on 26.06.2011.  Only after the respective merit of the candidates is reflected through the marks obtained by them in the Main Examination conducted by the respondent-KVS, and fresh cut-off marks are determined for each Post-Code for calling the candidates for interviews, those interviews alone would be valid under the process of selection already initiated for being undertaken by the respondents.  There shall be no order as to costs.


(Sudhir Kumar) (G. George Paracken)
  Member (A)      Member (J)


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

Another judgement (TET related, where advertisement is changed in middle of selection ) -

http://o-tet.blogspot.in/2012/08/otet-hc-relief-for-aspiring-pmy-school.html

Cuttack, Aug 8 (PTI) Orissa High Court today directed the state to continue with the recruitment process of 'Sikhya Sahayaks' in primary schools as per an advertisement made in this effect in December last year. Justice Kumari Sanju Panda said the ongoing recruitment process will continue as per the December 2011 advertisement, where there was no mention of the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).

UPTET News


UPTET  News






News Source : Hindustan Epaper Lucknow

Thursday, September 6, 2012

UPTET : टीईटी के लिए इसी महीने मांगे जाएंगे आवेदन


UPTET : टीईटी के लिए इसी महीने मांगे जाएंगे आवेदन


उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) कराने की जिम्मेदारी माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद से वापस लेकर परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी को देने जा रही है। टीईटी के लिए आवेदन अब हर साल सितंबर में लिए जाएंगे और परीक्षा नवंबर में कराकर जनवरी तक परिणाम घोषित कर दिए जाएंगे। राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) के प्रस्ताव पर शासन में सहमति बन गई है और जल्द ही शासनादेश जारी करने की तैयारी है

एससीईआरटी से भेजे गए प्रस्ताव के मुताबिक टीईटी प्रमाणपत्र की वैधता पांच साल की होगी। टीईटी पास करने वाला ही शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए आवेदन करने को पात्र होगा।

टीईटी प्राथमिक और उच्च प्राथमिक कक्षाओं के लिए अलग-अलग होगी। इस बार बीएड वालों को केवल उच्च प्राथमिक कक्षाओं के लिए होने वाली टीईटी में शामिल करने अनुमति देने पर विचार है लेकिन इस पर अंतिम निर्णय मुख्यमंत्री को करना है।

परीक्षा में शामिल होने वाले सामान्य और पिछड़ा वर्ग के अभ्यर्थियों से 500 और अनुसूचित जाति व अनुसूचित जनजाति के अभ्यर्थियों से 250 रुपये शुल्क लिया जाएगा। नि:शक्तों से पूर्व की भांति इस बार भी कोई शुल्क नहीं लिया जाएगा। आवेदन फार्म बैंक और पोस्ट ऑफिस से मिलेंगे। राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) द्वारा समय-समय पर जारी अधिसूचना के आधार पर टीईटी में शामिल होने की अनुमति दी जाएगी।

जिलाधिकारी की अध्यक्षता में जनपद स्तर पर गठित होने वाली कमेटी परीक्षा केंद्रों का निर्धारण करेगी। इसमें संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक सदस्य सचिव होंगे और डायट प्राचार्य, एडी बेसिक व बीएसए सदस्य होंगे। वर्ष 2011 में टीईटी आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद को दी गई थी। इसमें धांधली के बाद तत्कालीन माध्यमिक शिक्षा निदेशक संजय मोहन को गिरफ्तार किया गया था। इसके बाद मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव ने किसी दूसरी संस्था से परीक्षा कराने संबंधी प्रस्ताव मांगा था।

विवादों से नाता रहा है परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी का
टीईटी-2012 के आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी जिस संस्था को दी जा रही है, उसका विवादों से नाता रहा है। प्रदेश में वर्ष 2001 में बीटीसी की 5600 सीटों के लिए प्रवेश परीक्षा कराने की जिम्मेदारी परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी को ही दी गई थी।

परीक्षा में जमकर धांधली हुई थी और पूरे मामले की जांच सतर्कता विभाग से कराई गई थी। सतर्कता विभाग की संस्तुति पर बीटीसी प्रवेश परीक्षा निरस्त कर दी गई थी लेकिन बाद में हाईकोर्ट के आदेश पर इसे वैध मानते हुए सभी को प्राइमरी स्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापक की नौकरी दे दी गई।

बीटीसी की 13800 सीटों के लिए आवेदन इसी माह
बीटीसी की 13 हजार 800 सीटों पर एडमिशन देने की प्रवेश प्रक्रिया इसी माह शुरू करने की तैयारी है। इस संबंध में राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) से भेजे गए प्रस्ताव पर शासन में सहमति बन गई है। बीटीसी कोर्स के लिए इस बार ऑनलाइन आवेदन लेने का प्रस्ताव है

आवेदन के लिए अभ्यर्थियों को ऐच्छिक छूट होगी। इस संबंध में जल्द ही शासनादेश जारी करने की तैयारी है। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के स्कूलों में शिक्षक रखने की योग्यता बीटीसी है। प्रदेश में मौजूदा समय जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान (डायट) में 10 हजार 400 और प्राइवेट 68 कॉलेजों में 3400 सीटें हैं।

नियमत: बीटीसी कोर्स के लिए जुलाई में आवेदन ले लिए जाने चाहिए लेकिन इस बार प्रवेश प्रक्रिया में देरी है। एससीईआरटी से भेजे गए प्रस्ताव के मुताबिक प्रवेश प्रक्रिया के लिए आवेदन ऑनलाइन लिए जाएंगे लेकिन मेरिट जिला स्तर पर ही बनाई जाएगी।

मेरिट के आधार पर प्रवेश दिया जाएगा और प्रदेश के सभी डायटों पर एक ही साथ काउंसिलिंग की जाएगी। टॉप मेरिट वालों को डायट और इससे कम मेरिट वालों को प्राइवेट बीटीसी कॉलेजों में एडमिशन दिया जाएगा।

News Source : Amar Ujala (06.09.2012)
***********************************************
News Analysis :
Good News to Unsuccessful TET Candidates that they can have -

2nd Chance for B Ed degree holders to appear in PRT Level of UPTET exam may be possible (as per this news).
(NCTE guidelines may be relaxed by 2014, however still confirmation not heard. In recent news it was published that HRD Minister give  relaxation for B. Ed Candidates by 2014 and law department approval was pending. UP Govt. tried for relaxation upto 2015.
However shorthly all such matter will be clear to B Ed candidate that they are eligible for PRT.

By the end of this month picture will be clear for 72825 posts, And 2nd chance for B Ed candidates will be possible OR not.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

UPTET : टीईटी का जिम्मा सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी को


UPTET : टीईटी का जिम्मा सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी को


- परीक्षा नवंबर के चौथे या दिसंबर के पहले हफ्ते में कराने की मंशा
- एससीईआरटी ने शासन को भेजा प्रस्ताव

 लखनऊ : सूबे में अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) को आयोजित कराने की जिम्मेदारी यूपी बोर्ड से छीनकर उसे सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी इलाहाबाद को सौंपने का प्रस्ताव है। इस संबंध में राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद (एससीईआरटी) ने शासन को प्रस्ताव भेजा है। इस प्रस्ताव पर विभाग मुख्यमंत्री की मंजूरी लेगा।

प्रस्ताव के मुताबिक टीईटी के आयोजन की प्रक्रिया प्रत्येक वर्ष सितंबर में शुरू होगी। परीक्षा का आयोजन नवंबर के चौथे या दिसंबर के पहले हफ्ते में किया जाएगा। परीक्षा परिणाम फरवरी के दूसरे सप्ताह में घोषित होंगे। परीक्षा में सफल अभ्यर्थियों को आयोजक संस्था प्रमाणपत्र देगी जिसकी वैधता पांच साल होगी। परीक्षा में शामिल होने वाले सामान्य और पिछड़ा वर्ग के अभ्यर्थियों से 500 रुपये तथा अनुसूचित जाति/जनजाति के अभ्यर्थियों से 250 रुपये परीक्षा शुल्क लेने का प्रस्ताव है। विकलांग अभ्यर्थियों से परीक्षा शुल्क नहीं लिया जाएगा। परीक्षा के लिए आवेदन फॉर्म बैंक/पोस्ट ऑफिस के जरिये मिलेंगे।

प्राथमिक व उच्च प्राथमिक कक्षाओं के लिए परीक्षाएं एक ही दिन दो अलग पालियों में आयोजित की जाएंगी। टीईटी में शामिल होने के लिए अभ्यर्थियों की शैक्षिक योग्यता और परीक्षा के नियम समय-समय पर राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) द्वारा जारी अधिसूचनाओं और दिशानिर्देशों के अनुसार होगी। टीईटी का आयोजन मंडल मुख्यालयों पर होगा। परीक्षा केंद्रों के निर्धारण के लिए मंडल मुख्यालय के जिलाधिकारी की अध्यक्षता में समिति गठित करने का भी प्रस्ताव है। मंडलीय संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक समिति के सदस्य सचिव, मंडल मुख्यालय के जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक व डायट प्राचार्य सदस्य और मंडलीय सहायक शिक्षा निदेशक सचिव होंगे।

पिछले साल 13 नवंबर को प्रदेश में पहली बार टीईटी का आयोजन किया गया था। टीईटी के आयोजन की जिम्मेदारी यूपी बोर्ड को सौंपी गई थी। बाद में टीईटी के परीक्षा परिणाम में धांधली उजागर हुई थी जिसमें लिप्त पाये जाने पर तत्कालीन माध्यमिक शिक्षा निदेशक संजय मोहन व कुछ अन्य जेल में बंद हैं। टीईटी के सभी पहलुओं पर विचार करने के लिए मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव द्वारा मुख्य सचिव की अध्यक्षता में गठित उच्च स्तरीय समिति ने भी सिफारिश की थी कि टीईटी के लिए उपयुक्त परीक्षा संस्था के बारे में अलग से विचार कर प्रशासकीय विभाग प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत करेगा। टीईटी को पात्रता परीक्षा का दर्जा देने के साथ ही सरकार ने वर्ष 2012 की टीईटी को अगले छह महीने में आयोजित करने का आदेश दिया है


Info Source : http://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/lucknow-city-9637004.html / Jagran ( 05.09.2012)
**************************
News Analysis :-
New UPTET 2012 exam announcement can be possible shortly in a month (as appears from this news).
And a chance for lot candidates can be possible as UP is having more than 2 lakh vacant posts.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

CTET : Candidates can re appear in exam to improve score


CTET : Candidates can re appear in exam to improve score


11.2 There is no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a CTET Certificate. A person who has qualified CTET may also appear again for improving his/her score.
http://ctet.nic.in/ctetnov2012/PDF/CTET_NOV2012.pdf



UPTET : Some Candidate share info on Facebook


UPTET : Some Candidate share info on Facebook


Info on FB -
Dileep GangwarUptet Prt
8 hours ago ·
Ritesh Ojha
मेरे प्रिय मित्रों ,पहले तो देरेसे पोस्ट डालने के लिये मैं क्षमामाँगता हूँ क्योंकि हम कफी रात में बाराबंकी लौटे । कल बहुत लोगों ने मिथ्या अफवाह उड़ा दी कि सब समाप्त हो गया है परंतु ऐसा कुछ नहीं है । कल सबसे पहले कपिल देव बहादुर ने अपनी रिट वापस ले ली उसके बाद सरकरी वकील ने कहा कि हमने समस्त विज्ञप्तियाँ निरस्त कर दी हैं और अभ्यर्थियों का आवेदन शुल्क वापस करने के आदेश देदिये हैं । टंडन साहब ने हमारे वकील से कहा कि आप निरस्त विज्ञापन के खिलाफ अपनी वर्तमान रिट वापस लेकर नयी रिट डालेंगे किइसी को modify करके आगे बढ़ंगे । हमारे वकील ने कहा कि हम इसी को आगे लेकर बढ़ेंगे । जज साहब ने फिर सरकारी वकील से कहा कि जो भी संशोधन या विज्ञप्तियों को आपने निरस्त किया है उसको affidavit के माध्यम से 3 दिनों के अंदर प्रस्तुत करें और हमारे वकील को रिट modify करने के लिये 6 दिन का समय दिया और कहा कि 11 तरीख को इसपर बहस होगी । अब हमारे कुछ साथी कह रहे हैं कि विज्ञापन कोर्ट में होने के बावजूद सरकार के निरस्त करने के बाद टंडन साहब ने सरकार को क्यों नहीं फटकारा । इसका उत्तर यह है कि जब तक affidavit के माध्यम से कोर्ट को अवगत नहीं कराया जाता तबतक कोर्ट उसको नहीं मानती कि कोई संशोधन हुआ है,इसीलिये कोर्ट ने इनको 3 दिन में सब लाने को कहा है । 11 तारीख को इसका जवाब आप सभीको मिल जायेगा । दूसरे यह कि खरे साहब और शशिनन्दन कोर्ट क्यों नहीं गये तो जब तारीख ही लेनी थी तो इसके लिये तो कोई भी जाके ले सकता है क्योंकि अब हमको एक बात रिट में और जोड़्नी है कि सरकार ने विज्ञापन निरस्त कर दिया है और इसके लिये तारीख लेना तो तय था इसलिय्रे मेरे भाईयों चिंता न करें सब अपना काम इमानदारी से कर रहें हैं, किसी भी प्रकारकी निराशा अपने मन में न लायें । न कोर्ट बिकी है न ही हमारे वकील, हमारे सभी साथी इमानदारी से लगे हैं और निश्चित ही 11 तारीख को सारी शंकाओं के बादल छँट जायेंगे,आप सब बिल्कुल निराश न हों ।
*********************************

I am not against TET Merit holder OR Academic Merit Holders.
Information sharing is the concept of Blog.

Government and courts are authority to decide the matter. Government (Employer) has right to choose its employees and Court is to protect citizens right under law.
Both have their importance and citizens can put their matter to authorities for justice.

UPTET : मोअल्लिम उर्दू डिग्री धारकों को मिला आश्वासन


UPTET : मोअल्लिम उर्दू डिग्री धारकों को मिला आश्वासन


लखनऊ। मोअल्लिम उर्दू डिग्री धारकों को टीईटी से अलग नियुक्ति की कोशिश किए जाने का आश्वासन बेसिक शिक्षा राज्य मंत्री वसीम अहमद ने दिया है। वे मोअल्लिम उर्दू वेलफेयर एसोसिएशन की बैठक में मुख्य अतिथि थे। एसोसिएशन के प्रदेश संरक्षक आफताब आलम आफताब पठान ने बताया कि सोमवार को हुई बैठक में मांगंे रखी गई थीं।


News Source : Amar Ujala (4.9.12) / http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20120904a_009163010&ileft=129&itop=357&zoomRatio=130&AN=20120904a_009163010


UPTET : अध्यापकों की भर्ती पर सुनवाई 11 को


UPTET : अध्यापकों की भर्ती पर सुनवाई 11 को


इलाहाबाद। टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों सहायक अध्यापक पद पर चयन और नियुक्ति के मामले में अब 11 सितंबर को सुनवाई होगी। इस मामले में सोमवार को हाईकोर्ट ने प्रदेश सरकार को अपने फैसले पर हलफनामा दाखिल करने के लिए समय दिया गया है।


News Source : http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20120904a_004174004&ileft=129&itop=357&zoomRatio=130&AN=20120904a_004174004 / Amar Ujala(4.9.12)
************************
Matter is still pending in court


Monday, September 3, 2012

सफलता (Success )


सफलता  (Success )


Always keep trying for better alternatives.

Concept of 3-idios movie is good.

success ke peeche mat bhago, kabil bano, success tao jhak marke ayegi!!!!

बाबा रणछोड़ दास सही कहते थे...बच्चा काबिल बनो काबिल..कामयाबी तो साली झक मार के पीछे आयेगी

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

नए और अच्छे विकल्पों की तलाश जारी रखो , और आगे बड़ने के नए रास्ते पर चलते रहो 

मेहनत कभी बेकार नहीं जाती और मेहनत का कोई  विकल्प नहीं 

UPTET : Hearing in Allahabad Highcourt on 3rd Sept. 2012


UPTET : Hearing in Allahabad Highcourt on 3rd Sept. 2012


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 53 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 76392 of 2011 

Petitioner :- Shivani 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastava 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,C.N.Tripathi,Rajeev Joshi 

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification published by the State Government dated 2nd September, 2012 is proposed to be challenged by making an amendment application in the present writ petition. For the purpose, three days' time is prayed for. 
Similar request is being made in connected writ petitions also. 
Time prayed for is granted. 
Let the matter come up on 11th September, 2012 along with connected matters. 

(Arun Tandon, J.) 

Order Date :- 3.9.2012 
Sushil/- 

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2050945
*********************
Analysis :
From reading above , It looks - Matter is not completely closed.
And court not said anything about rules for selection. And we hope it will be clear to candidates in next hearing (As many candidates like selection from old advertisement with a base of TET merit. And many candidates have faith on academic merit/as amended in niyamavali)

UPTET: Hearing in Allahabad Highcourt on 3rd Sept. 2012


UPTET: Hearing in Allahabad Highcourt on 3rd Sept. 2012


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 53 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 76039 of 2011 

Petitioner :- Yadav Kapildev Lal Bahadur 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Rajesh Yadav 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S. Kushwaha 

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. 
Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the advertisement dated 30th November, 2011. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement itself has been withdrawn by the State Government under� the subsequent notification published in newspaper on 2nd September, 2012. 
In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition has become infructuous. 
It is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. 
Interim order, if any, stands discharged. 

(Arun Tandon, J.) 

Order Date :- 3.9.2012 
Sushil/-
Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2050937
****************************

Analysis (What I think by reading above) : 
Kapil Yadav's petition is - Advt. is not published according to rules.
And court gets information (from Petitioner Counsel i.e  party behalf of Kapil Yadav) from state government that - Advertisement is cancelled on 2nd Sept. 2012 therefore Kapil Yadav's  petition has no meaning now.And stay also vacated (i.e.  interim order ).

When petitioner admits that there is no meaning to fight more as advt. is cancelled, then why court will go ahead with this case.
If any body having better understanding then they can give light and elaborate the matter.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

UP Basic Education Teacher News : बेसिक शिक्षकों के मनचाहे तबादले पर फिरा पानी


UP Basic Education Teacher News : बेसिक शिक्षकों के मनचाहे तबादले पर फिरा पानी


•सपा के घोषणा पत्र और मुख्यमंत्री के पत्र पर अमल नहीं
•शिक्षक माननीय से लेकर विभागीय अफसरों के चक्कर काटने को मजबूर


लखनऊ। सरकार की ढुलमुल नीति से सूबे के हजारों बेसिक नगर शिक्षकों के मनचाहे तबादले पर पानी फिर गया है। सपा के घोषणा पत्र और मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव द्वारा शिक्षकों को लिखे पत्र के बाद नई सरकार से शिक्षकों को काफी उम्मीदें थी। लेकिन तबादला सीजन बीतने के बावजूद नगर शिक्षकों के मनचाहे तबादले की आस पूरी नहीं हुई। यह स्थिति तब है जब बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग द्वारा पहले 31 जुलाई तक शिक्षकों को महचाही तैनाती का ऐलान किया और बाद में इसे बढ़ाकर 31 अगस्त कर दिया गया। लेकिन दो माह बाद भी स्थिति यह है कि लखनऊ सहित प्रमुख शहरों में सैकड़ों पद खाली हैं और मनचाहे तबादले के लिए शिक्षक माननीय से लेकर विभागीय अधिकारियों तक के चक्कर काटने को मजबूर हैं।
गौरतलब है कि मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव ने स्वयं शिक्षकों को 27 जुलाई को पत्र लिखकर गृह जनपद में तैनाती का भरोसा दिलाया था। मुख्यमंत्री ने अपने पत्र में खासकर शिक्षिकाओं को अपने परिवार व गृह जिले में यथासंभव तबादला करने आश्वासन दिया था। लेकिन हजारों शिक्षिकाएं असाध्य बीमारी व अन्य कारणों से अपने परिवार से सैकड़ों किलोमीटर दूर रहने को मजबूर हैं

News Source : http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20120902a_010163019&ileft=129&itop=357&zoomRatio=130&AN=20120902a_010163019 / Amar Ujala (2.9.12)
************************
News Analysis : It looks an effort for teacher transfer / shuffling going to conduct before teachers recruitment (72825 + approx. 5000 posts),
But transfer process slowed as new teacher recruitment process slowed, and now cancelled.
May be transfer process going to conduct, when new teachers recruitment going to start.

UPTET : शिक्षकों की भर्ती का मामला आवेदन के साथ लगे ड्राफ्ट के पैसे वापस होंगे


UPTET : शिक्षकों की भर्ती का मामला
आवेदन के साथ लगे ड्राफ्ट के पैसे वापस होंगे

शासन ने डायट से वापस करने के दिए निर्देश  -

लखनऊ। शासन ने शिक्षकों के 72825 पदों पर भर्ती के लिए किए गए आवेदन के साथ लगाए गए बैंक ड्राफ्ट के पैसे वापस करने का आदेश दिया है। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया है कि शिक्षकों की भर्ती केलिए नए सिरे से जिलास्तर पर विज्ञापन किए जाएंगे।
शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए पूर्व में निकाले गए विज्ञापन को रद करने के बाद प्रमुख सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा सुनील कुमार ने आवेदन के साथ लगाए गए बैंकड्राफ्ट के पैसे को वापस करने संबंधी शासनादेश जारी कर दिया है।
शासनादेश के मुताबिक बेसिक शिक्षा निदेशक को निर्देश दिया गया है कि शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए जिन्होंने आवेदन किया था, उनके पैसे चेक के माध्यम से डायट से वापस कराया जाए। यह पैसा कब और किस तिथि से वापस किया जाएगा इसके लिए स्थानीय अखबारों में विज्ञापन निकाला जाएगा।
शासन ने कहा है कि यदि अभ्यर्थियों के मोबाइल नम्बर उपलब्ध हैं तो उस पर भी सूचना दी जाए ताकि सभी आवेदनकर्ताओं को पैसे मिल सकें। पैसे वापस करते समय यह सावधानी बरती जाएगी कि आवेदनकर्ता को फार्म और बैंकड्राफ्ट की फोटोकापी दिखानी होगी।
इसके अलावा उसे यह भी प्रूफ देना होगा कि उसने ही फार्म जमा किया है और ड्राफ्ट भी उसी का है। शासनादेश में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए नए सिरे से जनपद स्तर पर विज्ञापन निकाला जाएगा


News Source : http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20120902a_013131002&ileft=129&itop=357&zoomRatio=130&AN=20120902a_013131002 / Amar Ujala (2.9.12)
****************************
News Analysis : -
It is shocking news for many TET candidates as they are expecting that their advertisement is safe till judgement of Allahabad Highcourt on 3rd Sept. 2012.
It looks candidates has to reapply again as per new advertisements terms and conditions. (as per news)
Wait and watch - What happens in court on 3rd Sept. 2012.

UPTET : फीस वापसी, डायट की होगी अग्नि परीक्षा!


UPTET : फीस वापसी, डायट की होगी अग्नि परीक्षा!


सहारनपुर : प्रदेश शासन द्वारा बेसिक शिक्षकों की चयन प्रक्रिया का विज्ञापन रद करने से जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों के समक्ष नई चुनौती पैदा हो गई है। जारी आदेश के मुताबिक संस्थानों को अभ्यर्थियों की फीस वापस करनी होगी। जिला डायट में 1.15 लाख से अधिक अभ्यर्थियों ने भर्ती के लिए आवेदन किया था। हालांकि अभी डायट को फीस वापसी संबंधी कोई दिशा-निर्देश नहीं मिले हैं।

बेसिक शिक्षकों की भर्ती प्रक्रिया ने प्रदेश सरकार के समक्ष कई चुनौतियां पैदा कर रखी हैं। टीईटी का मामला अभी हाईकोर्ट में विचाराधीन है। हाल ही में सरकार ने टीईटी को केवल पात्रता परीक्षा मानने का निर्णय है। माना जा रहा है कि प्राइमरी शिक्षकों की भर्ती प्रक्रिया को रद करने का आधार भी यही कारण है। बता दें कि प्रदेश में नवंबर के अंतिम सप्ताह में टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों से प्राइमरी शिक्षकों के 72 हजार 825 पदों के लिए आवेदन मांगे गए थे।

800 पदों को 1.15 लाख आवेदन

जिले में प्राइमरी शिक्षकों 800 पदों के लिए जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान(डायट) में आवेदन पत्र मांगे गए थे। प्रक्रिया में पहले एक आवेदक को पांच जिलों में आवेदन की छूट दी गई थी। बाद में केवल 500 रुपये की एक फीस के आधार पर सभी जिलों में आवेदन की छूट दे दी गई थी। अन्य जिलों में आवेदन के लिए बैंक ड्राफ्ट की फोटो प्रति को मान्य किया गया। विभागीय सूत्रों के मुताबिक 1.15 लाख आवेदकों में से करीब 30 हजार ने निर्धारित फीस के साथ डायट में आवेदन किया था।

प्रक्रिया रद करने के आदेश में आवेदकों की फीस लौटाने की बात कही गई है। एक आंकलन के मुताबिक जिले में तीस हजार आवेदकों से करीब 1.50 करोड़ डायट को मिले थे। यह फीस अभ्यर्थियों को वापिस लौटाना अग्निपरीक्षा से कम नही होगा। डायट से मिली जानकारी के मुताबिक इस संबंध में अभी कोई निर्देश नहीं मिले हैं

News Source : http://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/saharanpur-9625225.html / Jagran ( 02.09.12)
****************************
News Analysis :
It is really tough to return money of candidate's, As many candidates applied in more than one district to increase their chances in selection. And we hope that draft amount was encased by the DIETs as at this moment validity of DD is expired. 

DIETs have to do a lot of work in returning money of candidates.


UPTET : शासन की कसरत में हाइकोर्ट का रोड़ा


UPTET : शासन की कसरत में हाइकोर्ट का रोड़ा


बागपत : आखिर जिसका अंदेशा था वही हुआ, टीईटी को लेकर शासन द्वारा हाई पावर कमेटी गठित करने जैसे हाईवोल्टेज ड्रामे के बाद अब इस पूरी भर्ती को रद कर हजारों उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों की उम्मीदों पर कुठाराघात कर दिया गया है। प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में 72825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती रद करने का फरमान तो शासन ने सुना दिया है, मगर उम्मीद की किरण अभी बाकी है। तीन सितंबर को हाईकोर्ट में होने वाली सुनवाई इस भर्ती के भविष्य को तय करेगी।

बसपा सरकार में उलझा टीईटी का गणित सपा सरकार में ओर भी उलझ गया है। विधानसभा चुनाव में मुख्य मुद्दों में शामिल रही टीईटी भर्ती प्रक्रिया पर सपा की कसरत सरकार बनने के बावजूद कोरा आश्वासन ही साबित हुई। प्रमुख सचिव जावेद उस्मानी के नेतृत्व में हाई पावर कमेटी की सिफारिशें भी इस बहुप्रतिक्षित भर्ती को जीवनदान न दे सकी। इधर, कोर्ट में भर्ती नियमों में संशोधन के मामले में खुद को घिरता देख शासन ने भर्ती निरस्त करने का आसान दांव खेल दिया है।

तीन सितंबर पर लगी निगाहें
इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में न्यायमूर्ति अरुण टंडन की कोर्ट में तीन सितंबर को इस मामले की अगली सुनवाई है। कोर्ट ने जहां पूर्व में भर्ती विज्ञापन जारी करने के मामले में स्टे दे रखा है, वहीं चार अन्य दायर रिटों में शासन के शैक्षिक आधार पर भर्ती कराने की मंशा को चैलेंज किया है। गत 27 अगस्त को कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट कर दिया था कि भर्ती को लेकर शासन द्वारा बनाए गए नए नियम मान्य नहीं होंगे। लिहाजा शासन ने पुराने विज्ञापन को रद करते हुए नए सिर से भर्ती करने का निर्णय ले लिया है

अंत तक जारी रखेंगे संघर्ष

टीईटी संघर्ष मोर्चा के जिलाध्यक्ष अनिल कुमार ने बताया कि इस भर्ती की बहाली के लिए अंत तक प्रयास किए जाएंगे। कोर्ट में प्रकरण चल रहा है। कोर्ट के आदेश के अनुरूप ही आगामी रणनीति बनाई जाएगी


Source : Jagran (2.9.12 ) / http://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/bagpat-9625191.html
**************************8
News Analysis : 
Daily new update comes in news, Earlier in news that entire UPTET exam may be cancelled, after that Base of Selection Change, And now another update is - Advertisement is cancelled and new fresh advertisement (including CTET candidate) is going to announce.

Candidate's anxiety increases - What happens on 3rd Sept. 2012 in Allahabad High court.
Expectation for  - True and good judgement will arrive to give relief to candidates.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

UPTET : Article By Shyam Dev Mishra regarding Teacher Recruitment Cancellation News


UPTET : Article By Shyam Dev Mishra regarding Teacher Recruitment Cancellation News

प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती का विज्ञापन रद्द करने का सरकार का आदेश : इसमें नया क्या है?

आज के समाचारपत्रों में प्रकाशित समाचार के अनुसार सरकार ने प्रमुख सचिव को आदेश दिया है कि 2 दिसंबर 2011 को प्रदेश के प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए आवेदन आमंत्रित करने वाले विज्ञापन को निरस्त करें. पर इस समाचार से किसी को भी हताश होने या प्रसन्नता से उछल पड़ने का कम से कम कोई नया कारण इसलिए नहीं मिल जाता कि सरकार द्वारा 23 जुलाई 2012 की कैबिनेट मीटिंग में इस आशय का निर्णय लिया गया था जिसकी जानकारी सभी को है और इसकी प्रति सरकार ने कोर्ट में भी 6 अगस्त 2012 की सुनवाई के दौरान पेश की थी. अतएव स्थिति में कोई भी परिवर्तन नहीं आया है, क़ानूनी तौर से हम आज उसी स्थिति में हैं, जिस स्थिति में हम 27 अगस्त 2012 की सुनवाई के बाद थे. समाचार अगर सत्य है तो यह केवल इतना स्पष्ट करता है कि सरकार अपने पुराने हठवादी एवं दुराग्रही रुख पर ही कायम है और इसकी मंशा को पूरा होने से रोकने के लिए टी.ई.टी. मेरिट समर्थकों को न्यायालय में सरकार के खिलाफ पूरी मजबूती से डटे रहने की आवश्यकता है जिसके लिए वे पहले से तैयार भी बैठे हैं. .
स्थिति में कोई भी परिवर्तन अब 3 सितम्बर 2012 को ही होगा, उसके पूर्व नहीं
जहाँ एक ओर अभी सरकार के इस आदेश को न्यायिक अवमानना नहीं माना जा सकता क्योंकि कैबिनेट के निर्णय को चुनौती देने वाली चारो याचिकाएं (मेरी जानकारी के अनुसार) विचारार्थ स्वीकार भले ही हुई हैं पर उनपर न्यायालय ने कोई अंतरिम आदेश या स्थगनादेश (स्टे) जारी नहीं किया है. पर दूसरी ओर यह मामला सब-ज्यूडिस (न्यायालय में विचार के लिए स्वीकृत और विचाराधीन) है इसका स्पष्ट मतलब है है कि इस आदेश का मूल यानि सरकार का 23 जुलाई का निर्णय सर्वव्यापी, न्यायिक समीक्षा से परे या अंतिम नहीं है और न्यायालय द्वारा इस गलत समझे जाने पर इसे रद्द भी क्या जा सकता है. अतः यह भी मानना होगा कि सरकार द्वारा 23 जुलाई 2012 को लिया गया निर्णय कोर्ट द्वारा रद्द होने की स्थिति में यह आदेश स्वतः निष्प्रभावी हो जायेगा

माननीय न्यायाधीश अरुण टंडन जी इस मामले पर विचार करते सरकार का नहीं, कानून के दायरे में और साक्ष्यों के आधार पर सिर्फ और सिर्फ न्याय का ही पक्ष लेने वाले हैं. उनकी असंदिग्ध न्यायप्रियता और सरकार के प्रति उनके दृष्टिकोण की पुष्टि केस संख्या 14427 / 2010 (रणजीत सिंह बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार) की 17 व 31 अगस्त 2012 की सुनवाई के बाद उनके आदेशो से होती है जिसमे उन्होंने बिना किसी संकोच, दबाव और भय के सीधे तौर पर उत्तर प्रदेश में स्वयं सरकार को शिक्षा-व्यवस्था को प्रदूषित (भ्रष्ट कह सकते हैं) करने वाला सबसे बड़ा कारक बताते हुए सरकारी डायट में चल रहे प्रशिक्षण को मात्र प्रमाणपत्र बाटने के उद्देश्य से किया जा रहा तमाशा करार देते हुए लिखित रूप से स्पष्ट किया है कि ऐसे मामलों में सरकार को अपनी शक्तियों का मनचाहा प्रयोग करते हुए कुछ भी करने की छूट नहीं दी जाएगी और सरकार को कोर्ट के आदेश मानने ही पड़ेंगे. अतः सबको यह स्पष्ट हो जाना चाहिए कि "सरकार बहुत कुछ तो कर सकती है, पर सबकुछ नहीं कर सकती!

जिन लोगो को सरकार और व्यवस्था के खिलाफ कुछ हो सकने का भरोसा नहीं. उन्हें एक बार उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार तो क्या, खुद भारत सरकार और भारत की सर्वोच्च "संसद' तक द्वारा धार्मिक अल्पसंख्यकों को 4.5% आरक्षण देने के लिए बनाये गए कानून के हश्र को याद रखना चाहिए जिसे न्यायपालिका ने असंवैधानिक बताते हुए, सिरे से खारिज करते हुए रद्द कर दिया. अगर केंद्र और संसद तक के नीतिगत आदेश न्यायिक समीक्षा के अंतर्गत हैं तो अखिलेश यादव की सरकार क्या चीज़ है, बस हमारा पक्ष सही होना चाहिए, सही ढंग से न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत किया जाना चाहिए.

अतः इस आदेश से भ्रमित या विचलित हो उठे साथियों से केवल इतना कहना चाहूँगा कि इस समाचार में कुछ नया नहीं है और आज भी इस देश में न्यायालय के रूप में हमारे पास एक एक ऐसा संरक्षक मौजूद है जो आपके सही होने, आपके जागरूक होने और आपके प्रयास करने पर आपको ऐसे अन्यायों से बचने में पूर्णतया सक्षम है.अगर न्यायालय आपका पक्ष सही मानता है तो सरकार भी आपका हक़ आपसे छीन नहीं सकती, बस जागरूक रहें, विवेक का प्रयोग करें और अपने अधिकारों के लिए पूरी सामर्थ्य के साथ संघर्ष करने का संकल्प करें. आशा है आगामी ३ सितम्बर को शायद स्थिति काफी स्पष्ट हो जाएगी.
उपरोक्त विषय-वस्तु मेरी व्यक्तिगत सोच और मेरे अधिवक्ता मित्र द्वारा दी गई जानकारी का निष्कर्ष है, यदि कोई साथी इसमें कोई तार्किक या तथ्यात्मक संशोधन करना चाहे या कुछ जोड़ना चाहे तो उनका स्वागत है. पर प्रत्येक परिस्थिति में नकारात्मक सोचने वाले लोगो के लिए और कडवी सच्चाई से आँख मूंदकर आत्म-मुग्ध रहने वालों के लिए यह सब निरी बकवास है, इसका भी मुझे पूर्ण विश्वास है.

- Article By Mr. Shyad Dev Mishra 

72,825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती का विज्ञापन रद्द, अब नए सिरे से जारी होगा

शिक्षक भर्ती की संशोधित नियमावली जारी

लखनऊ। राज्य सरकार ने बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के स्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा अध्यापक सेवा नियमावली की संशोधन का शासनादेश शुक्रवार को जारी कर दिया।
प्रमुख सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा सुनील कुमार की ओर से जारी शासनादेश के मुताबिक शिक्षकों की भर्ती हाईस्कूल, इंटर, स्नातक और बीएड के प्राप्तांकों को जोड़कर मेरिट के आधार पर की जाएगी। शिक्षक भर्ती के लिए टीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थी ही आवेदन कर सकेंगे। भर्ती के लिए न्यूनतम आयुसीमा 18 से बढ़ाकर 21 कर दी गई। पूर्व में 72825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए जारी विज्ञापन भी रद्द कर दिया गया है। अब शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए विज्ञापन नए सिरे से जारी होगा।

बसपा सरकार में नियमावली को संशोधित कर शिक्षक भर्ती की अर्हता टीईटी मेरिट कर दी गई थी। अखिलेश सरकार ने इसमें बदलाव कर फिर से शैक्षिक मेरिट कर दिया है। शासनादेश के मुताबिक बेसिक शिक्षकों की रिटायरमेंट आयु 62 वर्ष कर दी गई थी लेकिन नियमावली में इसका प्रावधान नहीं किया गया था। विभाग ने नियमावली में भी इसका प्रावधान कर दिया है। इसके अलावा अध्यापकों के स्थानांतरण संबंधी नियमावली को संशोधित कर आदेश जारी कर दिया गया है

News Source : Amar Ujala (1.9.12)
********************
News Analysis :  Recruitment matter still running in court and next date of hearing is 3rd Sept. 2012

UPTET : Recruitment of Primary Teacher Cancelled


UPTET : Recruitment of Primary Teacher Cancelled



News Source : http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx (Page No. 10 , Date 1.9.12,  Lucknow Edition )
***********************
News Analysis -
However recruitment matter still running in court and next date of hearing is 3rd Sept. 2012

UPTET : अध्यापक भर्ती प्रक्रिया निरस्त करने का आदेश




UPTET : अध्यापक भर्ती प्रक्रिया निरस्त करने का आदेश 

 सरकार ने बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के प्राथमिक स्कूलों में 72,825 सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती की प्रक्रिया को निरस्त करने के आदेश दिए हैं। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव से कहा गया है कि वह भर्ती संबंधी विज्ञापन रद कर दें। भर्ती प्रक्रिया निरस्त होने के साथ ही सभी आवेदकों को आवेदन फार्म के एवज में जमा की गई धनराशि की वापसी की जाएगी।


टीईटी अब सिर्फ पात्रता परीक्षा
जाब्यू, लखनऊ : तीन दशक से ज्यादा पुरानी उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा (अध्यापक) सेवा नियमावली को फिर संशोधित कर दिया गया है। नियमावली में संशोधन के साथ ही शिक्षकों की भर्ती का आधार अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टीईटी) की मेरिट के बजाय हाईस्कूल, इंटरमीडिएट व स्नातक के अंकों के आधार पर जिला स्तर पर तैयार की जाने वाली मेरिट हो गया है। बीते दिनों कैबिनेट के निर्णय के अनुसार शुक्रवार को बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने संशोधित नियमावली जारी कर दी। ऐसे में अब शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के लिए अनिवार्य पात्रता परीक्षा के रूप में टीईटी के साथ ही अब केंद्र सरकार की केंद्रीय अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (सीटीईटी) को भी मान्यता मिल गई है। संशोधन से सीटीईटी उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थी भी राज्य में शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए आवेदन कर सकता है। परिषदीय जूनियर हाईस्कूलों में विज्ञान और गणित शिक्षकों के 50 फीसदी पदों पर सीधी भर्ती का रास्ता भी साफ हो गया है। शेष 50 फीसदी पद प्रोन्नति से भरे जाएंगे। पहले शिक्षकों के सभी पद प्रोन्नति से ही भरने की व्यवस्था थी। नियमावली संशोधित होने से परिषदीय स्कूलों में शिक्षकों के अंतर जनपदीय तबादलों की पुरानी व्यवस्था भी बहाल हो गई है। अब शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति की न्यूनतम आयु 21 वर्ष भी हो गई है। 

अध्यापक भर्ती प्रक्रिया निरस्त करने का आदेश : सरकार ने बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के प्राथमिक स्कूलों में 72,825 सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती की प्रक्रिया को निरस्त करने के आदेश दिए हैं। बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव से कहा गया है कि वह भर्ती संबंधी विज्ञापन रद कर दें। भर्ती प्रक्रिया निरस्त होने के साथ ही सभी आवेदकों को आवेदन फार्म के एवज में जमा की गई धनराशि की वापसी की जाएगी


News Source : http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/epaper/index.php?location=37&edition=2012-09-01&pageno=11 / Jagran (1.9.12)

Unemployed Allowance : 9 सितंबर को बंटेगा बेरोजगारी भत्ता


Unemployed Allowance : 9 सितंबर को बंटेगा बेरोजगारी भत्ता

लखनऊ। बेरोजगारी भत्ते का इंतजार अब खत्म होने वाला है। मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव नौ सितंबर को बेरोजगारी भत्ता योजना-2012 का विधिवत उद्घाटन करेंगे। काल्विन तालुकेदार्स कॉलेज में दस हजार बेरोजगारों को चेक से भत्ते का वितरण किया जाएगा। लखनऊ मंडल के अलावा आसपास के जिलों के बेरोजगारों को उद्घाटन समारोह के लिए बुलाया गया है। मुख्यमंत्री अखिलेश यादव के उद्घाटन के तुरंत बाद ही सभी जिलों के जिलाधिकारी या प्रतिनिधि भत्ते का चेक वितरित करेंगे। उद्घाटन के दिन जुलाई तक आवेदन करने वाले प्रदेश के 96000 बेरोजगारों को भत्ते का चेक दिया जाए

Unemployed Allowance : पंजीयन के अंतिम दिन उमड़ी भीड़



Unemployed Allowance : पंजीयन के अंतिम दिन उमड़ी भीड़

31st August was the Last Date to Register for 1st installment of Unemployed Allowance , And on this day a heavy crowd of unemployed is seen to register their name in employment exchange :

भत्ते की पहली किस्त के लिए 31 अगस्त तक आवेदन जमा कराए जाने हैं, जबकि एक सितंबर से दूसरी किस्त के लिए आवेदन कराए जाएंगे, जबकि पंजीकरण कराने की कोई तिथि निर्धारित नहीं है
*********************

 लखनऊ: बेरोजगारी भत्ते के लिए शुक्रवार को पंजीयन की अंतिम तिथि होने की वजह से सुबह से ही बेरोजगारों का लालबाग स्थित सेवायोजन कार्यालय में जमावड़ा लगा रहा। देर शाम तक 2245 बेरोजगारों ने पंजीयन कराया जबकि 869 ने बेरोजगारी भत्ते के लिए आवेदन जमा किया। सेवायोजन कार्यालय मे बेरोजगारों की कतारें लग गई थीं। आपाधापी में कई बेरोजगारों के दस्तावेज भी गुम हो गए। आवेदन जमा करने की अंतिम तिथि न होने की लाउड स्पीकर से घोषणा के बावजूद आवेदन करने वालों की कतारें कम होने का नाम नहीं ले रही थी। भत्ते के लिए पंजीयन की अंतिम तिथि होने की वजह से देर शाम तक बेरोजगारों का जमावड़ा लगा रहा। बेरोजगारों की संख्या को देखते हुए पुलिस की मौजूदगी के बावजूद अवैध स्टैंड का संचालन होने लगा। पांच से 10 रुपये की मनमानी वसूली को लेकर संचालकों और बेरोजगारों में कई बार झड़प भी हुई



******************************
News Analysis :
As in recent News , Unemployed Allowance going to distribute shortly and work will not be taken from Unemployed , A charm for Unemployed Allowance Registration is increased -
बेरोजगारी भत्ते पर पलटी मारते हुए यूपी सरकार ने कहा कि अब बेरोजगारों को भत्ते के बदले कोई काम नहीं करना होगा। सरकार ने बेरोजगारों को दिए जाने वाले भत्ते में एक बार फिर संशोधन करते हुए यह निर्णय लिया है। बेरोजगारों को यह भत्ता सितम्बर माह से मिलना शुरू हो जाये

2nd Point is Age Limit Factor : -
पहले कहा गया कि 35 से 45 वर्ष के लोगों को भत्ता दिया जाएगा। उसके बाद आयु सीमा 25 से 35 की गयी, फिर यह सीमा 25 से 45 वर्ष की गयी। इसी बीच सरकार ने कहा था कि बेरोजगारी भत्ता के बदले काम लिए जाने की शर्त रखी गई थी लेकिन  उसे भी वापस लेने की घोषणा कर दी गई

However candidates will receive allowance in their bank account from -
अक्टूबर में मिलेगी बेरोजगारी भत्ते की पहली किश्त

सिर्फ राष्ट्रीय बैंक के चलेंगे खाते
भत्ते का भुगतान सीधे बेरोजगारों के राष्ट्रीय बैंकों के खाते में भेज दिया जाएगा। सहायक सेवायोजन अधिकारी ने बताया कि सहकारी और ग्रामीण बैंकों के खाते नहीं चलेंगे। हालांकि खबर है कि कई बेरोजगार महिलाओं के पति ने सहकारी या ग्रामीण बैंक का खाता अपने आवेदन पत्र में अंकित कर दिए हैं। उन्हें सुधार का मौका मिलेगा


News regarding registration in employment exchanges - http://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/raebareli-9622143.html , http://www.amarujala.com/City/Raebareli/Raebareli-41626-129.html
http://www.amarujala.com/city/Hardoi/Hardoi-92930-37.html ,  http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/end-watches-to-wait-for-unemployment-allowance/articleshow/16078704.cms

UPTET : शिवकीर्ति सिंह होंगे मुख्य न्यायाधीश, इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट


UPTET : शिवकीर्ति सिंह होंगे मुख्य न्यायाधीश, इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट 

 पटना हाई कोर्ट के न्यायाधीश शिवकीर्ति सिंह इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट स्थानांतरित किए गए हैं। वह दो माह बाद इलाहाबादहाई कोर्ट के मुख्य न्यायाधीश का पदभार संभालेंगे। इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के कार्यवाहक मुख्य न्यायाधीश अमिताभ लाला 13 नवंबर को सेवानिवृत्त हो जाएंगे। शिवकीर्ति सिंह उनकी जगह लेंगे। न्यायाधीश रफत आलम ने आठ अगस्त को इलाहाबाद के मुख्य न्यायाधीश के पद से अवकाश ग्रहण किया था। उसके बाद जस्टिस अमिताभ लाला को कार्यवाहक मुख्य न्यायाधीश बनाया गया था


About : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh -

Hon’ble Mr Justice Shiva Kirti Singh (M.A., LL.B.) was born on November 13, 1951. He passed Senior Cambridge examination from Sainik School, Tilaiya, graduated in Political Science (Hons.) from Patna College, completed post graduation in the same subject from Patna University, passed LL.B. examination from Patna Law College, all in first division. He belongs to a family of eminent legal luminaries. He is grandson of late Justice B. P. Sinha who rose to be the Chief Justice of India between 1961 and 1964. His father, late Justice Shambhu Prasad Singh was an eminent civil lawyer and a Judge of Patna High Court between 1967 and 1979 and was also Acting Chief Justice for sometime. His maternal uncle late Justice R.P. Sinha was also a Judge of Patna High Court.

 Justice Shiva Kirti Singh was enrolled as an Advocate on March 17, 1977 and was designated Senior Advocate on January 17, 1990. He practiced in the Patna High Court in all kinds of cases- Civil, Criminal, Service and Constitutional. He was counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board for several years. He was elevated as a Permanent Judge of the Patna High Court on December 29, 1998. He is Executive Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority since 7th March, 2006. He became Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court in May 2009 for about four months, again in September 2009 for about same period and for the third time in May 2010 for a lesser period