Saturday, April 6, 2013

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and RTI


Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and RTI

An Applicant/ Candidate Asks about TET and related clarifications, and when he has not received satisfactory response then he reaches to CIC to file appeal.
CIC directed to provide information to applicant.

See -



 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26105682
File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/001619/RM
Appellant: Mr. Kamal Kumar, Udham Singh 
Nagar, Uttarakhand
Public Authority: National Council for Teacher 
Education, New Delhi
Date of Hearing: 27.7.2012
Date of decision: 27.7.2012
Heard today, dated 27.7.2012.
Appellant is present through video conferencing.
Public Authority represented by Ms Mamta Kukreti, PIO, NCTE, Delhi.      
The appellant was heard and records perused.
FACTSVide RTI  dated 27.12.10,  the appellant  had sought  certain information 
from  NCTE,  Delhi  regarding  qualifications  required  for  appointment  as
teachers.
2. PIO vide letter dated 14.2.11, responded to the queries. 
3. An appeal was filed on 14.2.11. 
4. AA vide order dated 22.2.11, held that information in respect of points i &
ii has already been furnished and disposed of the appeal.
5. Not satisfied with the response, he filed the present appeal.
6. The  appellant  submitted  that  he  is  not  satisfied  with  the  responses
provided  by  the PIO NCTE vide their  letter  dated 14.2.11.  The appellant
further  submitted that  he had sought  specific clarifications in his RTI  which
have  not  been  responded  to.  It  is  seen  that  the  queries  sought  by  the
appellant are in the nature of interpretation/clarification/seeking opinion of the
NCTE relating to appointment of Primary Teachers. Even though the PIO has
responded  to  these  queries,  strictly  speaking,  they  do  not  constitute
‘information’ as per the provisions of the RTI  Act.  This was explained to the
appellant.
7. PIO submitted that apart from responding to the RTI, they have already
provided to him copies of gazette notification dated 25.8.10 and amendment
dated 2.8.11 along with a copy of guidelines for conducting teacher eligibility
test dated 11.2.11. 
DECISION

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Double Bench Hearing Details on 8th March 2013


UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Double Bench Hearing Details on 8th March 2013


MUST READ - Contains Many Important Points for TET is MUST OR Not 


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.
Court No.30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12908 of 2013
Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others

****
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J

Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.B. Yadav for the respondents.

The legal submissions raised by Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, have awakened a point of dissent to the ratio of the decision of a division bench while disposing of a bunch of Special Appeals in the case of Prabhakar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided recently on 16.1.2013 and reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 651. The theme of the controversy that has allowed this debate to commence is "as to whether a candidate expecting to get appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a government run Primary School (Class I to V) has to compulsorily clear the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test as a precondition to his consideration as such" or entitled to any relaxation as interpreted by the Division Bench.

The petitioner is a victim of circumstances. He lost his father who died-in-harness while working as a Headmaster on 3.6.2011 in a Primary School of District Agra. The petitioner under the rules, being entitled for a compassionate appointment, applied and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 6.8.2011 by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra. The petitioner, according to the averments, was possessed of the educational qualifications as prescribed, but not having the training qualifications, sought permission to complete the same that was also extended on 28.3.2012. While undergoing training , the petitioner was served with a show-cause as to whether he has cleared the UPTET or not which is compulsory as per the Circular of the Basic Education Board dated 12.6.2012. The petitioner gave a reply that the rule of passing the TET could have been complied with, had this condition been imposed in the letter of appointment. In the absence of any such stipulation, the petitioner cannot be compelled to forego his appointment on that scoreThe impugned order dated 31.12.2012 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner has been passed on the ground taken in the show-cause as the petitioner has neither appeared nor cleared the UPTET. For this relevant Government Orders of the State in compliance of the Notification issued under the Right to Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the 2011 Rules framed thereunder have been relied on. This issue of passing the UPTET had been engaging the attention of the Court in different writ petitions where also the same controversy was raised and they faced dismissal before the learned single JudgesA large number of Special Appeals were filed and after being clubbed together were decided by the Division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case (supra). 

The petitioner, taking aid of the said judgment, delivered after the impugned order was passed, has now came up assailing the action of cancellation on the basis of the ratio of Prabhakar Singh's case. If the argument is accepted, then the judgment squarely covers the case at hand and the petition has to succeed, but on hearing the learned counsel and perusing the judgment relied on, I would humbly vary in my opinion for the reasons set out herein under. The decision in my modest assessment on this issue requires a reconsideration as, in short, no exception or relaxation can be carved out for not passing the test on a plain reading of the Notifications and provisions under consideration. Having extensively gone through the decision, the directions issued in para 75 thereof are quoted hereunder:-

"In the result all the Special appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 

(i)The appellants/other eligible candidates who have passed BA/BSc with 50% and are B.Ed being fully eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher to teach Classes I to V as per Clause 3 of the notification dated 23rd August, 2010, as amended from time to time, are entitled for consideration for their appointment on vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in Classes I to V. The State authorities including the concerned District Basic Education Officers are directed to consider the claim of such persons while considering the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in institutions to teach Classes I to V. 

(ii)The State is directed to issue a corrigendum so that all eligible candidates as per clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended i.e. candidates having 50% marks in B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed. should also be permitted to participate in the ongoing process of appointment of trainee teachers. At least 15 days time be allowed to submit applications by above mentioned candidates. 

(iii)The prayer of the appellants possessing BTC/Special BTC qualifications obtained after 23.8.2010 to issue direction to appoint them giving benefit of paragraph 5 of the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 cannot be accepted. " 


To appreciate the point of reconsideration, it will be apt to narrate a short background of the legal provisions that reflect on the controversy. Appointments to Primary Schools in the State are governed by the provisions of the Basic Education Act, 1972, read with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Rule-8 thereof, as amended up to 9.11.2011, provides the prescription of educational and training qualifications. The rule includes the Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC) apart from other similar and equivalent qualifying Certificates. The State was facing a crunch in the field of qualified and trained teachers, the primary cause whereof was an acute shortage of approved Training Centres and Colleges, as a result whereof the vacancies kept on increasing. The State Government to cope up with this shortage issued Government Orders from time to time to run more Special BTC courses of particular durations that were also granted equivalence for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Teachers.

Another peculiar fact that is to be noted is that since the gap between the vacancies and non-availability of adequate number of trained candidates, appointments under the 1981 Rules almost became a routine upon completion of training without following the procedure under Rule 14 thereof that requires an advertisement followed by selection. This practice was continuing since decades.

To improve the standard and quality of primary education, the Parliament enacted the NCTE Act of 1993 for regulating the norms of institutions that were involved in the grooming of future teachers. Regulations were framed thereunder in 2001 that enunciate training qualifications.

The competence of such Legislation emanates from Entry 25 of List III under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Thus, the State and the Centre, both can legislate and obviously the Central Legislation would prevail if it occupies the field.

Then comes the Constitutional reform introduced through the enforcement of Article 21-A of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education up to a certain age. This led to the passing of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education act, 2009, by the Parliament followed by the 2011 Rules framed in the State of U.P. This act defined the NCTE as the Academic Authority empowered to fix qualifications and conditions for appointment as a teacher in a Basic School from Class I to VIII. Section 23 of the 2009 Act, that is the hub of discussion is extracted here under:-

"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.- (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2)Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses for training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification." 


It is in exercise of the said powers that the NCTE issued the Notification dated 23.8.2010 that gives rise to this deliberation quoted here under:-

"NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010

F.No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S).- 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 (35 of 2009), and in pursuance of Notification No. S.O. 750 (E) dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby lays down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the date of this notification:-

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 up to 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.

4. Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification:- The following categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above,

(a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher class I to V possessing B.Ed qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme on elementary education.

(b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6 month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE;

(c) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.

5. Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in certain cases:- Where an appropriate Government, or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time)."


The Division Bench went on to answer the second question posed by it from paragraph No.54 of the judgment resting its conclusions on a purposive construction logic to justify the exclusion of TET for appointment of Assistant Teachers in class I to V. It is this part of the judgment that requires a reconsideration for the reasons indicated below.

The reason that appears to have weighed with the bench is that clause-3 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 is a substantive provision that is in addition to Clauses 1 and 2. It has further held that it is an exception to the qualification provided in clause 1. Thus, the requirement of TET in Clause 1 stands ruled out by this interpretation for applying clause-3. The Bench has proceeded to construe clause-3 as if it stands independent of clause 1 and has applied the harmonious rule of interpretation to read the construction of the said Notification. The argument advanced by the State was rejected on the logic that a plain meaning has to be given to clause-3 and that "passing of the eligibility test" would be adding words to the said clause 3 that was never intended. The amendment to the 1981 Rules introducing the qualification of TET have accordingly been held to be contrary to the qualification envisaged under Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act. The subsequent Notifications including the Notification dated 10.9.2012 extending the period of relaxation have been co-related with clause-3 to give it an independent status and forming a separate class with only the qualifications limited under clause-3. The reasoning is spread over in Paras 54 to 73 to support the said conclusions.

With the utmost respect to the ratio of the decision, clause-3 does not exist independent of clause-1. It nowhere excludes the passing of the eligibility test. It is for this reason that it was not required to be mentioned, and was not mentioned, in clause-3 separately. Clause-3 begins with the topical introduction of training to be undergone. It is to be clearly understood that broadly there are three requirements for appointment. First is the educational qualification. The second is the training qualification and the third hurdle that matures thereafter to be crossed is the Teacher Eligibility Test.

The relaxation that appears to have been introduced and subsequently extended is in respect of acquiring the first two, particularly training. The reason was non-availability of trained teachers. The relaxation was to facilitate training qualifications. It was not to eliminate the Teacher Eligibility Test. The purpose to undergo this Test is to ensure that the best candidates who are eligible are screened before they are appointed. It is for this reason that every Notification in relation thereto clearly recites that no candidate can be offered appointment unless he clears the Teacher Eligibility Test. The absence of any such words in clause-3 does not obviate the passing of the test. A plain reading of clause-3 would leave no room for doubt that it only facilitates acquisition of training that relates to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules. The exemption to the selection and appointment through advertisement, where the process of recruitment has commenced prior to the notification has been extended which does not eliminate the passing of eligibility test thereafter.

Apart from this, the word "AND" has been used before the requirement of Teacher Eligibility which clearly entails it to be an independent additional requirement to be possessed by a candidate before appointment in respect of all class of teachers for classes I to VIII. To construe it otherwise would be to loose sight of the object and purpose of the Teacher Eligibility Test. The capacity and efficiency to teach primary classes is required to be assessed and appointment is to be not offered on mere possession of qualification.

This in a way supplements the selection of a candidate through a process as envisaged under Rule 14 of the 1981 Rules. It is, therefore, nowhere in contradiction to the notification nor is the amendment in Rule 8 anyway contrary to the notification issued under Section 23 of the 2009 Act. Once the Division Bench construes clause-3 to be in addition to clause-1, then it would be an anomaly to read it as an exception.

The very purpose for ensuring excellent standards would be ruined if teachers are allowed to be appointed in the same routine way as was being done before. This would be overloading the system with lesser qualified and inefficient teachers that would be a burden and against the clear intention of the legislature and rule making authority to ensure the benchmark prescribed. The concession, therefore, granted by the Division Bench deserves to be reconsidered as it appears to be contrary to the purpose for which the Test was introduced. 

In the field of primary education, the achievement of excellence is the objective for which the possession of best tools is desirable. The deficiencies became subject matter of a report that has been recently brought before the Apex Court in a case where the department of School Education, Ministry of Human Resources has highlighted the urgent need of generating qualitative Teacher Training Schools and improving the selection process for a better standard of teaching. The problems of good teaching, organisational skills and a long standing experience in the field of education has been vividly described by English authors like Gervase Phinn and Jack Sheffield who drawing from their experience through an interaction with students and teachers alike have thrown enough light on areas of improvement, that includes the approach of good teaching and selection of good teachers in Basic Schools, even in developed countries like England.

The National Council for Teacher Education promulgated a set of Guidelines on 11.2.2011 for implementing the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The same runs into several pages and have been brought to the notice of the Court by Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Addl. Advocate General and it is upon reading these Guidelines that my views stand confirmed about the real purpose and intent of conducting a Teacher Eligibility Test. These Guidelines do not appear to have been noticed nor have they been referred to in the Division Bench judgment. In order to gather the intention of the Legislation that was sought to be enforced, the said Guidelines are a clear indicator that no exemption or relaxation was ever intended so as to segregate clauses 1 and 3 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010. To my mind, the Guidelines comprehensively illustrate the true intention and allay any doubt about the same. The Guidelines are so extensive that they conclude the debate on the issue of intention of carrying out and applying the Teacher Eligibility Test for all classes from class I to VIII. The dispensation, therefore, as suggested by the Division Bench would be clearly contrary to the intentions so expressed by the Apex Academic Authority namely the National Council for Teacher Education. There is no rule or notification to the contrary promulgated either by the Central Government or by the State Government. To infer a contrary intention would be depriving the legislation of its life.

The relaxation has to be understood in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the 2009 Act where the opening words make it clear that such provisions of relaxation are where there are no adequate facilities of training and teachers are not available that the minimum qualification can be relaxed. This power does not relax the passing of TET exams. The entire emphasis in all the notifications and provisions is on the passing of the TET exams over and above the qualifications or relaxations prescribed, but there is no intention to exclude the same. The golden rule of plain reading for interpreting the provisions deserves to be adopted keeping in view Heydon's rule as there does not appear to be any ambiguity. It is not a case of any thing relevant having been omitted deliberately to provide relaxation. The requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Exam is not controlled by clause-3. Rather clause-3 is subject to clause-1. The provision does not get stamped out or obliterated. It is not abandoned in any way on a combined reading of the provisions. To conclude that it is disconnected with clause-3 would be to snap the umbilical cord that tethers the main object of strict scrutiny of candidates. There is no intention to grant immunity from TET Exams as observed by the Division Bench. The life and intent of clause-1 cannot be severed by its physical absence in clause-3. This is not a matter of simply having a different opinion but of the correct interpretation of the provisions. The absence of a mandate of TET exams in clause-3 does not grant an immunity as clause-1 survives with its rigour together with clause 3. There cannot be, therefore, a second opinion on the interpretation of a combined reading of the provisions. The Eligibility Exams are like a Green Card for securing appointment.

From a perusal of the Division Bench judgment, it appears that petitioners therein were only praying that they should not be compelled to pass the test. They do not appear to have challenged or even doubted the intention of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 on the ground of any inconsistency between clause I and clause 3 thereof. They simply wanted a protection, rather an exemption, on the ground that their selection and process of recruitment had already commenced prior to the Notification and, therefore, they should not be compelled to face the TET. The logic of holding the Eligibility Test does not appear to have been advanced as an argument. Once there was no dispute as to the intention to hold the test for all teachers for class I to VIII alike, the reasoning of the decision appears to be alien to the cause raised.

Instead of bringing consistency, the harmony is shattered by an anomaly of creating two classes of teachers - one who possesses TET and those who sail through without any test. The "superior purpose" of having the best teachers would be lost. The statute has to be read as a whole in its context without divorcing the purpose of clauses 1 and 3 read together. This includes a regard to the subject and objects of the law and also to the consequences of an interpretation. The court cannot limit its vision bereft of the circumstances that led to the framing of the law. In view of the discussions aforesaid, I am unable to persuade myself to follow the ratio of the decision in Prabhakar Singh's case (supra) to the extent of the answer given by the Bench in relation to the second issue as dealt with in Paras 54 to 75 of the reported judgment. The same does not appear to lay down the law correctly in my humble estimation and requires a reconsideration.

I, therefore, for the reasons above mentioned consider it necessary that the judgment in Prabhakar Singh's case (supra) be referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement in terms of Chapter V Rule 2 (ix) (b) read with Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952.

Let the papers be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders with a request that the matter involves the selections of teachers in primary schools through out the State and an early disposal of the matter will benefit the litigant and the State equally. 

Since the matter involves the interpretation of a Notification issued under a Central Act, let the Union of India, Ministry of Human resources, New Delhi, through its Secretary and the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, through its Member Secretary be impleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner as Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively within a week and serve a copy of the petition on their counsel informing them about the passing of this order in writing.

Dt. 8.3.2013
Irshad




Friday, April 5, 2013

LT Grade / Allahabad Highcourt : M.A type PG Degree Quality Point Will be Used to Select Science Teacher in UP OR Not


LT Grade / Allahabad Highcourt : M.A type PG Degree Quality Point Will be Used to Select Science Teacher in UP OR Not


Next Hearing Date : 10th April 2013

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case Status - Allahabad

Pending
Writ - A : 6333 of 2013 [Banda]
Petitioner: RAVINDRA BABU SHRIWAS AND ORS.
Respondent: STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & ORS.
Counsel (Pet.): RADHA KANT OJHA
Counsel (Res.): C.S.C.
Category: Service-Writ Petitions Relating To Primary Education (teaching Staff) (single Bench)-Miscellaneous
Date of Filing: 01/02/2013
Last Listed on: 03/04/2013 in Court No. 30
Next Listing Date (Likely): 10/04/2013

This is not an authentic/certified copy of the information regarding status of a case. Authentic/certified information may be obtained under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of Allahabad High Court Rules. 

LEKHPAL RECRUITMENT UP लेखपाल के 5400 पदों पर तत्काल शुरू की जाए भर्ती : मुख्य सचिव


अखिलेश सरकार का 2013-14 का रोडमैप तैयार : नई नीतियां बनेंगी
BUMPER JOBS IN UP : सरकारी महकमों में बंपर भर्ती करने की तैयारी

LEKHPAL RECRUITMENT UP लेखपाल के 5400 पदों पर तत्काल शुरू की जाए भर्ती : मुख्य सचिव

लखनऊ। प्रदेश सरकार ने चालू वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए विकास कार्यों की प्राथमिकता का एजेंडा तय कर दिया है। समय से पहले लोकसभा चुनाव की आहट के बीच सरकार ने विभिन्न विभागों में खाली चल रहे पदों पर भर्तियों को इस साल अपनी प्राथमिकता में शामिल किया है। शिक्षक, कांस्टेबल, उपनिरीक्षक, लेखपाल, ग्राम विकास अधिकारी, ग्राम पंचायत अधिकारी व अन्य पदों पर बड़ी संख्या में भर्तियों की तैयारी है। यही नहीं सरकार ने चालू वित्तीय वर्ष में करीब दो दर्जन नई नीतियां लाने या पुरानी नीतियों में बदलाव का फैसला किया है। नई नीतियों के जरिये ज्यादा से ज्यादा रोजगार के रास्ते तैयार करने पर अधिक जोर है। अनुदेशक नियमावली में संशोधन करते हुए अनुदेशकों के रिक्त पदों को भरने का फैसला भी एजेंडे में शामिल है। प्रदेश में बैंकों की 3,000 नई शाखाएं खोलना भी प्राथमिकताओं में है। इनमें से 300 नई बैंक शाखाओं का उद्घाटन हाल में केंद्रीय वित्तमंत्री पी चिदंबरम कर चुके हैं।
मुख्य सचिव जावेद उस्मानी ने वर्ष 2013-14 में विभिन्न विभागों के लिए सर्वोच्च प्राथमिकता के करीब पौने दो सौ बिंदुओं का एजेंडा जारी किया है। इसमें सूबे के विकास के लिए वित्तीय संसाधन जुटाने को पहले बिंदु के रूप में शामिल किया गया है। वित्त विभाग को 72,861 करोड़ रुपये कर संग्रह का लक्ष्य मिला है। केंद्र सरकार की योजनाओं और कार्यक्रमों में अधिकाधिक केंद्रीय सहायता हासिल करना एजेंडा का दूसरा मुख्य बिंदु है। 

इसमें मनरेगा, राष्ट्रीय कृषि विकास योजना, जेएनएनयूआरएम, नेशनल ई-गवर्नेंस योजना, राष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य बीमा, एसएसए, आरटीई, एनएचआरएम सहित केंद्रीय सहयोग से चलने वाली 26 योजनाएं शामिल हैं। एजेंडे में पिछले साल घोषित कई नई नीतियों के क्रियान्वयन पर जोर देने के साथ ही इस साल कई और नीतियां लाने और कई अधिनियमों में संशोधन की योजना की मंशा भी जाहिर की गई है। यह एजेंडा सभी विभागाध्यक्षों को भेज दिया गया है।

News Sabhaar /Source : Amar Ujala (5.4.13)

Thursday, April 4, 2013

UPTET : ALLAHABAD HC TRIPLE BENCH HEARING ON 3RD APRIL 2013


UPTET : ALLAHABAD HC TRIPLE BENCH HEARING ON 3RD APRIL 2013


See this -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12908 of 2013
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Bhushan,Adarsh Bhushan,Rahul Agrawal
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhter,R.B.Yadav

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The Vakalatnama filed by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh on behalf of respondent no.3 is taken on record.
The Full Bench has been constituted by the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 14.3.2013 for deciding the reference made on 8.3.2013 in Writ Petition No.12908 of 2013.
We have heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, Shri Arvind Srivastava, Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Shri C.B. Yadav, Additional Advocate General appears for the State of UP. Shri R.A. Akhtar appears for National Council for Teachers Education. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Krishna Agarwal appear for the Central Government.
After giving an opportunity of preliminary hearing to the parties, we are of the view that following questions arise for consideration by the Full Bench:-
"a) What does the phrase "minimum qualifications" occurring in Section 23 (1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and its insistence by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.08.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?
b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act,� permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers? What is the significance of the words "shall also be eligible for appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education"?
c) Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others vs. State of UP and others 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?
List on 16.4.2013 at 10.00 AM. The parties will� file written arguments with supporting documents by 12.4.2013.
Order Date :- 3.4.2013
RKP

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2477828
**************************************
What I felt is, Court wants to know following details - 
1. Minimum Qualification
2. Kya TET pass karna ek Qualification Hai  ?
3. Iska kya matalb haishall also be eligible for appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education"?

4. Kya Double Bench/Division Bench kee openion (RAI) Jo ke Prbhakar Singh ke case mein dee gayee thaa, Vhe Kanoonan Sahee Hai ??
Mere khyal se vhe - NON TET ko Teacher Bhrtee Mein Shamil Karne Kee Thee

Anudeshak recruitment in UP : अनुदेशक भर्ती अभ्यर्थियों की याचिका खारिज


Anudeshak recruitment in UP : अनुदेशक भर्ती अभ्यर्थियों की याचिका खारिज

इलाहाबाद - विद्यालयों में अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों की भर्ती में शामिल अभ्यर्थियों को हाईकोर्ट से कोई राहत नहीं मिली है। न्यायालय ने इस मामले में हस्तक्षेप से इंकार करते हुए याचिकाएं खारिज कर दी हैं। कोर्ट ने इसे सरकार का नीतिगत मामला माना जिसमें अल्पकालीन योजना के तहत नियुक्तियां की जा रही हैं। रामविजय यादव और अन्य की ओर से याचिका दाखिल कर अनुदेशक भर्ती के लिए जारी शासनादेश को चुनौती दी गई थी। अपर महाधिवक्ता ने कहा कि नियुक्तियां मात्र 11 माह के लिए की जा रही हैं


News Source / Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (4.4.13)

UPTET : टीईटी मामले में सुनवाई 16 को


UPTET : टीईटी मामले में सुनवाई 16 को

इलाहाबाद। सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती मामले में टीईटी की अनिवार्यता को पूर्णपीठ में चल रही सुनवाई अब 16 अप्रैल को होगी। कोर्ट ने इस बीच सभी पक्षकारों से अपना लिखित कथन प्रस्तुत करने का निर्देश दिया है। बुधवार को याचियों, पक्षकारों और प्रदेश सरकार के अलावा एनसीटीई की ओर से अपना पक्ष कोर्ट के सामने रखा गया। सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती मामले में प्रभाकर सिंह केस में हाईकोर्ट की खंडपीठ ने बीएड डिग्री धारक अभ्यर्थियों को बिना टीईटी उत्तीर्ण किए सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती प्रक्रिया में शामिल करने का आदेश दिया था। इस आदेश पर हाईकोर्ट की एकल न्यायपीठ ने मामले को रिफरेंस के लिए पूर्णपीठ के समक्ष संदर्भित करने का निर्देश दिया।
बुधवार को इस मामले पर गठित न्यायमूर्ति सुनील अंबवानी, न्यायमूर्ति एपी साही और न्यायमूर्ति पीकेएस बघेल की की पूर्णपीठ ने सुनवाई की। पूर्णपीठ को सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में टीईटी के अंक को अर्हता बनाए जाने या अंकों के आधार पर नियुक्ति करने के प्रश्न पर भी सुनवाई करनी है।
प्रदेश सरकार की ओर से अपर महाधिवक्ता सीबी यादव, मुख्य स्थायी अधिवक्ता द्वितीय कमरूल हसन सिद्दकी और एनसीटीई की ओर से रिजवान अली अख्तर ने पक्ष रखा।

महिलाओं को आरक्षण देने की मांग खारिज
इलाहाबाद। कोर्ट ने प्रशिक्षु अध्यापक भर्ती में महिलाओं के लिए 50 प्रतिशत पद आरक्षित करने की मांग को लेकर दाखिल जनहित याचिका खारिज कर दी है। जनहित याचिका पर मुख्य न्यायाधीश शिवकीर्ति सिंह और न्यायमूर्ति दिलीप गुप्ता ने सुनवाई की। याची नीरज राय ने 50 प्रतिशत पद आरक्षित करने की मांग की थी


News Source / Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (4.4.2013)
*************************

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

UPTET : टीईटी मामले की सुनवाई 16 को


UPTET : टीईटी मामले की सुनवाई 16 को

    
इलाहाबाद : प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में टीईटी की अनिवार्यता मुद्दे पर गठित इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की पूर्ण पीठ ने राज्य सरकार व याची अधिवक्ताओं से 12 अप्रैल तक लिखित बहस दाखिल करने की छूट दी है। मामले की सुनवाई की अगली तिथि 16 अप्रैल नियत की गयी है।

शिव कुमार शर्मा की याचिका पर संदर्भित विधि प्रश्नों की सुनवाई न्यायमूर्ति सुनील अम्बवानी, न्यायमूर्ति एपी शाही तथा न्यायमूर्ति पीकेएस बघेल की तीन सदस्यीय पूर्ण पीठ कर रही है। कोर्ट के समक्ष प्रश्न यह है कि सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति बिना टीईटी पास किये हो सकती है या नहीं। बीएड डिग्रीधारी को भी नियुक्ति का अवसर मिलेगा या नहीं तथा नियुक्ति मानक क्या क्वालिटी मार्क होगा या उसमें टीईटी के अंक भी शामिल होंगे। इस पर फैसले के बाद 72 हजार से अधिक अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति का रास्ता खुल सकेगा



News Source : Jagran (Updated on: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:42 PM (IST))
******************************
As per info given by TET candidates on FB that - Non TET side is weaker in court, however one more chance is given in court to get better opinion from advocates/govt before taking final decision.

UPTET : शिक्षक भर्ती में सुनवाई की अगली तारीख 16 अप्रैल, नान टेट वाले 12 को देंगे जबाव


UPTET : शिक्षक भर्ती में सुनवाई की अगली तारीख 16 अप्रैल, नान टेट वाले 12 को देंगे जबाव

सूत्रों के अनुसार -
 उत्तर प्रदेश चल रही 72000 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती के मामला अभी हाईकोर्ट में और लम्बा खिंचता दिखायी दे रहा है। बीएड बेरोजगारों को अभी शिक्षक पद पर भर्ती होने के लिए इंतजार करना पड़ेगा। जानकारी के अनुसार सुनवाई की अगली तारीख 16 अप्रैल बतायीगयी है। नान टेट वाले 12 अप्रैल को जबाव देंगे।

कुछ अभ्यार्थीयों का सोचना है कि ये विज्ञापन पूर्व वर्ती सरकार ने निकाला था इसलिए 
राजनीती एक कारण हो सकता है 
,आखिर मेहनती / इमानदार छात्रों का क्या कसूर था कि उन्हें टी ई टी परीक्षा में अच्छे अंक लाने पर भी  भी सजा भुगतनी पड़ रही है


प्राइमरी स्कूलों का हाल किसी को शायद दिखायी नहीं देता जहां गरीब व बेसहारा बच्चे शिक्षा ग्रहण कर रहे हैं। इन ग्रामीण इलाकोंमें स्थित प्राइमरी स्कूलों में सरकार द्वारा 1 अप्रैल से भले ही शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियमपूर्णतः लागू किये जाने की घोषणा कर दी हो लेकिन उसके लिए तैयारियां मात्र कागजों पर ही हैं। हकीकत में प्राइमरी स्कूलों में बच्चों को शिक्षा दिलाने के लिए पर्याप्त मात्रा में शिक्षक नहीं है। प्रदेश शिक्षकों की कमी से जूझ रहा है। लेकिन सरकार द्वारा बीएड पास अभ्यर्थियों सेआवेदनों के नाम पर मोटी फीस तो गटक ली गयी लेकिन भर्ती प्रक्रिया एक बार फिर अदालती कार्यवाही में उलझ गयी।
पिछली बसपा सरकार में 2011 में टीईटी परीक्षा करायी गयी। उस समय सरकार द्वारा निर्णय लिया गया कि 

टीईटी परीक्षा के आधार पर ही शिक्षकों की भर्ती की जायेगी। जिसके लिए शिक्षक नियमावली में संशोधन कर भर्ती प्रक्रिया अंतिम दौर तक पहुंच गयी। लेकिन सरकार बदलने के बाद समाजवादी पार्टी की सरकार ने पिछली पूरी भर्ती प्रक्रिया निरस्त कर दोबारा आवेदन मांग लिये। अब सरकार बदलने के साथ ही बीएड बेरोजगार अभ्यर्थी लुट रहे हैं और अदालत की वाट जोह रहे हैं। आखिर कब होगा बीएड बेरोजगारों के साथ न्याय? यह प्रश्न बरोजगारों के मन में रात दिन कौंध रहा है


Tuesday, April 2, 2013

UPTET : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HEARING IN LARGER BENCH


UPTET : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HEARING IN LARGER BENCH


CAUSE LIST ALLAHABAD

Cause List
03/04/2013

                                                       AT 10.00 A.M.
                    COURT NO.29
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL
               -                                                  
                                      For Admission
 WRIT - A                                
   1. DF    12908/2013 SHIV KUMAR SHARMA               ANIL BHUSHAN             
                                                       ADARSH BHUSHAN
                                                       RAHUL AGRAWAL
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & O  C.S.C.                   
                       -RS.                            R.B.YADAV
                                                       R.A. AKHTER
 WITH WRIA- 12911/2013 YATINDER KUMAR TIWARI           ANIL BHUSHAN             
                                                       ADARSH BHUSHAN
                                                       RAHUL AGRAWAL
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & O  C.S.C.                   
                       -RS.                            R.B.YADAV
 WITH WRIA- 12915/2013 PRIT PAL SINGH                  ANIL BHUSHAN             
                                                       ADARSH BHUSHAN
                                                       RAHUL AGRAWAL
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P.THRU SECY & O  C.S.C.                   
                       -RS.                            R.B.YADAV
 WITH SPLA- 150/2013   NAVIN SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS     ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA      
                                                       SHASHI NANDAN
                                                       ASHEESH MANI TRIPATHI
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       C.B.YADAV
                                                       BHANU PRATAP SINGH
 WITH SPLA- 149/2013   SUJEET SINGH AND OTHERS         NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                                                       SHAILENDRA
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
 WITH SPLA- 152/2013   RAJEEV KUMAR YADAV              SADANAND MISHRA          
                                                       SEEMANT SINGH
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       SHYAM KRISHNA GUPTA
 WITH SPLA- 159/2013   ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS           SIDDHARTH KHARE          
                                                       ASHOK KHARE
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       A.K. YADAV
 WITH SPLA- 161/2013   ALOK SINGH AND OTHERS           ABHISHEK SRIVASTASVA     
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       A.K. YADAV
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
 WITH SPLA- 205/2013   AMAR NATH YADAV AND OTHERS      PANKAJ LAL               
                                                       INDRA RAJ SINGH
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       MRIGRAJ SINGH
                                                       B.P. SINGH
                                                       S. NADEEM AHMAD
 WITH SPLA- 206/2013   YAJUVENDRA SINGH CHANDDEL AND   KSHETRESH CHANDRA SHUKLA 
                       -ANOTHER
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
 WITH SPLA- 220/2013   AMITESHWARI DUBEY AND OTHERS    MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY        
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRY.  C.S.C.                   
                       - BASIC EDUCATION LOK. AND ORS. A.K. YADAV
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
 WITH SPLA- 244/2012   DR. PRASHANT KUMAR DUBEY        ALOK MISHRA              
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
 WITH SPLA- 246/2013   PRIYANKA BHASKAR AND OTHERS     VIJAY SHANKAR TRIPATHI   
                                                       VINOD SHANKAR TRIPATHI
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       RAM CHANDRA SINGH
 WITH SPLA- 248/2013   UMA SHANKER PATEL AND OTHERS    NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
                                                       A.K. YADAV
 WITH SPLA- 249/2013   DEVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS         NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       MRIGRAJ SINGH
                                                       R.A. AKHTA R
 WITH SPLA- 261/2013   SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS         HEMANT KUMAR RAI         
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       R.B. PRADHAN
 WITH SPLA- 262/2013   SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS         HEMANT KUMAR RAI         
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
 WITH SPLA- 264/2013   RAMA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS        HEMANT KUMAR RAI         
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
 WITH SPLA- 265/2013   NAGENDRA KUMAR YADAV AND OTHER  NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                       -S
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
                                                       SANJAY CHATURVEDI
 WITH SPLA- 266/2013   HARVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS      NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
                                                       Y.S. BOHAR
 WITH SPLA- 268/2013   RAJIV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND OTH  NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                       -ERS
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
                                                       B.P. SINGH
 WITH SPLA- 307/2013   VINEET KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS   JAGDISH PATHAK           
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       A.K. YADAV
 WITH SPLA- 333/2013   SATENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS       R.K. MISHRA              
                                                       G.K. MISHRA
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       H.K. YADAV
                                                       ILLEGIBLE
 WITH SPLAD-200/2013   RAJPAL SINGH AND OTHERS         MURTUZA ALI              
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       AYANK MISHRA
                                                       R.A. AKHTAR
                                                       SHYAM KRISHNA GUPTA
 WITH SPLAD-227/2013   PRAVEEN KUMAR                   IRSHAD ALI               
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       SHYAM KRISHNA GUPTA
 WITH SPLAD-228/2013   MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA AND OTHER  VIJAY CHAURASIA          
                       -S
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
 WITH SPLAD-237/2013   SHIV KUMAR PATHAK AND OTHERS    V.K. SINGH               
                                                       G.K. SINGH
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       A.K. YADAV
 WITH SPLAD-302/2013   RAM BABOO SINGH AND OTHERS      NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA       
                                                       NEERAJ TIWARI
                       Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS    C.S.C.                   
                                                       A.K. YADAV
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT BHUSHAN

Visit : Allahabad Highcourt for update/details

UPTET : इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट की व्रहद बेंच /ट्रिपल बेंच लाखो शिक्षकों की भर्ती का मामला


UPTET : इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट की व्रहद बेंच /ट्रिपल बेंच 

लाखो शिक्षकों की भर्ती का मामला 

अभ्यार्थीयों में  बैचेनी बढ गयी है कि कल न्यायलय में क्या होगा 
एक तरफ टी ई टी वर्सस नॉन टी ई टी का मामला है 
दुसरी  तरफ पुराना  विज्ञापन (टी ई टी मेरिट ) वर्सस नया विज्ञापन  (एकेड मेरिट) है 





UP Anudeshak Recruitment - पहले दिन 132 सहायक अध्यापकों ने भरे विकल्प


UP Anudeshak Recruitment - पहले दिन 132 सहायक अध्यापकों ने भरे विकल्प
•काउंसिलिंग में 98 शिक्षिकाओं ने अपनी पसंद भरी

•शिक्षिकाओं ने काउंसिलिंग में लगाया मनमानी का आरोप


इलाहाबाद। अंतरजनपदीय तबादले के बाद जिले में आई शिक्षिकाओं की काउंसिलिंग सोमवार को शुरू हो गई। काउंसिलिंग के पहले दिन डायट में 135 से 132 शिक्षक और शिक्षिकाओं ने विकल्प पत्र भरकर अपनी पसंद भरी। पहले दिन डायट में विकल्प पत्र भरने पहुंची शिक्षिकाओं ने आरोप लगाया कि बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ने सभी विद्यालयों में खाली पदों का विकल्प नहीं खोला है। उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि शहर से पास के स्कूलों जहां पद खाली हैं, वह भी नहीं खोले गए हैं। शंकरगढ़, कोरांव, मांडा के विद्यालयों को खोला गया है। शिक्षिकाओं ने इस बात को लेकर बीएसए से मिलकर समस्या बताई। बीएसए का कहना है कि दूसरे जिले से आई शिक्षिकाएं मात्र शहर से लगे ब्लाक में ही पढ़ाना चाहती हैं, आखिर में कोरांव, मांडा, मेजा ,शंकरगढ़ ब्लाक के स्कूलों के बच्चों का क्या दोष है कि उनको पढ़ने की सुविधा न मिले। काउंसिलिंग से पहले ही अनियमितताओं का आरोप लगा रहे शिक्षक संघ के नेता भी पहले दिन ही गायब रहे।

काउंसिलिंग कराने के लिए सोमवार को उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों के 135 शिक्षिकाओं और विकलांग पुरुषों को बुलाया था। विकल्प पत्र भरने के लिए शिक्षिकाओं की भीड़ सुबह से ही डायट में जुटने लगी थी। दोपहर तक भीड़ इतनी हो गई कि लिस्ट देखने के लिए धक्का-मुक्की होने लगी। शाम तक सौ शिक्षिकाओं में से 98 और 35 में से 34 विकलांग पुरुष शिक्षकों ने काउंसिलिंग कराई। मंगलवार से प्राथमिक विद्यालयों की शिक्षिकाओं की काउंसिलिंग शुरू होगी जो पांच अप्रैल तक चलेगी। बीएसए पीके शर्मा ने बताया कि काउंसिलिंग के बाद स्कूलों को लॉक कर दिया जाएगा और नई लिस्ट जारी की जाएगी


News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (2.4.2013)
*************************************************
After all contract basis upper primary anudeshak recruitment starts in UP.
It will give relief to Basic Education Schools in UP.

Monday, April 1, 2013

Ward of D.M may study in UP Basic School


परिषदीय स्कूल में पढ़ेंगे डीएम साब के बच्चे!

Ward of D.M may study in UP Basic School

बरेली : जिले के डीएम से लेकर बाबू तक का बच्चा परिषदीय स्कूल में पढे़गा। क्या हुआ आपको कुछ अटपटा लगा। लगना स्वाभाविक भी है। कहां आइएएस का बेटा और कहां परिषदीय स्कूल। लेकिन आज नहीं तो हो सकता है कल यह सच हो जाए। इस असंभव मुहिम का आगाज करने की तैयारियां पूरी हो चुकी हैं। आदर्श शिक्षामित्र वेलफेयर एसोसिएशन ने इसके लिए कमर कस ली है

एसोसिएशन स्कूल चलो अभियान के समानांतर जिस मुहिम को चलाने जा रही है, वह काफी रोमांचक और उत्साह पैदा करने वाली है, अगर शासन और प्रशासन इसे गंभीरता से ले। एसोसिएशन के पदाधिकारियों ने कहा कि छात्र संख्या कम होने और शिक्षण गुणवत्ता को निखारने के लिए अब तक के नुस्खे कारगर नहीं हो पाए। सरकार के स्कूल, सरकार के लोग और फिर भी परिषदीय स्कूलों से ज्यादा पब्लिक स्कूलों पर ज्यादा विश्वास कैसे पैदा हो रहा है? जबकि संसाधनों की कोई खास कमी नहीं है। एसोसिएशन के प्रांतीय उपाध्यक्ष दुष्यंत चौहान ने कहा कि स्कूल में पढ़ाने के बाद शिक्षामित्र अपने गांव और वार्ड में घर-घर जाकर इस मुहिम को बड़े बदलाव के लिए आंदोलन की शक्ल देंगे। संगठन ने तय किया है कि पूरा समाज अधिकारियों, शिक्षकों और हम शिक्षामित्रों पर भी नैतिक दबाव बनाए कि हमारे बच्चे परिषदीय स्कूलों में पढ़ें। पहले चरण में हस्ताक्षर अभियान के साथ फेसबुक पर समर्थन मांगने का अभियान चलाया जाएगा। जो अधिकारी, शिक्षक या शिक्षामित्र अपने बच्चों का प्रवेश नहीं कराएंगे, उनके नाम और पद सार्वजनिक किए जाएंगे। उसी सूची में यह भी बताया जाएगा कि उनके बच्चे किस स्कूल से शिक्षा ले रहे हैं और फीस क्या है? एसोसिएशन के मंडल मंत्री चरन सिंह ने कहा कि शिक्षामित्र से लेकर डीएम तक के बच्चों का परिषदीय स्कूल में होना सालभर में इन स्कूलों की कायापलट कर देगा। विभाग के मंत्री से लेकर अधिकांश बड़े अधिकारी इन्हीं स्कूलों की फसल हैं, जिसको लेकर गर्व किया जा सकता है।

------

वर्जन------

यह मुहिम काफी सराहनीय है। ऐसा होना चाहिए, लेकिन किसी के व्यक्तिगत मत को रोका नहीं जा सकता। ऐसी कोशिश में मेरा सहयोग रहेगा।

- चंद्रकेश सिंह यादव, बीएसए


News Source : Jagran (Updated on: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:28 PM (IST)) 
*************************
If it happens then it will be a very good step. Quality of schools/education may positively affected through this.
If One Education System will implement in India , And all beuracrates / politicians / ministers ward will educate from such institutions then Quality of Education in such schools will be possibly increased as such institution comes in direct attention of officers.