Saturday, March 23, 2024

UPTETNews - क्या बिना जूनियर टेट पास किये प्राइमरी शिक्षक प्रोमोशन पा सकते हैं ? कोर्ट : नहीं जूनियर टेट पास करना जरुरी होगा जूनियर टीचर प्रोमोशन के लिए , नियुक्ति तिथि से कोई मतलब नहीं No, Junior TET pass is must to get promotion

UPTETNews -   क्या बिना जूनियर टेट पास किये प्राइमरी शिक्षक प्रोमोशन पा सकते हैं ? कोर्ट : नहीं जूनियर टेट पास करना जरुरी होगा जूनियर टीचर प्रोमोशन के लिए  , नियुक्ति तिथि से कोई मतलब नहीं  No, Junior TET pass is must to get promotion

बगैर जूनियर टेट पास किये सर्विस में बने रहेंगे ,इंक्रीमेंट वगैरह मिलते रहेंगे , लेकिन- प्रोमोशन के लिए उपयुक्त टेट ( जूनियर टेट ) पास करना जरुरी है 

6.A reading of the above judgment would make it clear that any appointment made to Graduate Teacher / B.T. Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion


Madras High Court

T.Chitra Devi vs The Director Of School Education on 7 February, 2024

Author: R. Mahadevan

Bench: R. MahadevanMohammed Shaffiq

                                                                          W.A.No.392 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED 07.02.2024

                                                     CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
                                                      AND
                                  THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

                                               W.A.No.392 of 2024
                                                     AND
                                              C.M.P.No.2643 of 2024


                T.Chitra Devi                                         .. Appellant
                                                       Vs.

                1.The Director of School Education
                DPI Campus, College Road
                Chennai 600 006

                2.The Chief Educational Officer
                Kancheepuram District
                Kancheepuram

                3.The District Educational Officer
                St. Thomas Mount, Chrompet
                Kancheepuram District

                4.The Secretary
                Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School
                East Tambaram
                Chennai 600 059

                5.Teachers Recruitment Board
                Rep. by its Chairman
                College Road, Nungambakkam
                Chennai 600 006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/9
                                                                                   W.A.No.392 of 2024

                6.Union of India
                Rep. by its Secretary to Government
                Department of School Educational and Literacy
                Ministry of Human Resource development
                217-C, Shastri Bhawan
                New Delhi 110 001

                7.National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
                Rep. by its Member Secretary
                G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka
                New Delhi 110 075                                             .. Respondents
                          Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
                dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.34653 of 2019.
                                  For Appellant   : Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan
                                  For Respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru
                                                    Special Government Pleader (Education)


                                                     JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This writ appeal arises out of the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.34653 of 2019.

2.The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein, praying for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from insisting passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for her appointment as B.T. Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school on 15.06.2011 prior to issuance of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to continue to make payment of salary including annual increment, incentive and other service benefits.

3.It was the case of the appellant before the writ court that the fourth respondent school is a Government aided private school and she was appointed as B.T. Assistant (English) vide order dated 31.05.2011 and she joined duty in the 4th respondent School on 15.06.2011 against the sanctioned vacancy. While so, she was not paid any annual increment right from the date of her appointment and also not sanctioned incentive increment for her higher qualification. That apart, from August 2019, the 4th respondent had stopped the payment of salary to the appellant on the premise that she has to pass Teachers Eligibility Test (“TET” in short). According to the appellant, TET cannot be insisted in respect of appointments already made prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department dated 15.11.2011, and therefore, insisting upon passing of TET for paying salary and other benefits to the appellant is totally arbitrary and unreasonable.

4.Referring to the constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act” in short), Notification of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 Government of India dated 31.03.2010 issued under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act and the Guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education, the Writ Court held that accepting the recommendation and the Notification issued by the NCTE, the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011, which makes it very clear that TET shall be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE and that, it has been stated in the G.O. that teachers appointed prior to the G.O. will be given five years time to acquire the minimum qualification. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, by order dated 29.04.2022, which is impugned herein, at the instance of the writ petitioner.

5.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for both sides, in union, submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by a common judgment passed by the very same Bench earlier in The Director of School Education D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai vs. M. Velayutham (W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., batch decided on 02.06.2023). The key issues for determination and also the resultant portion of the said judgment, read as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 "1.The key issues that arise for determination in these batch of writ appeals and writ petitions are: (i) whether passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant/Graduate Teacher, from the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher (already in service). (ii) whether non-possession/non-acquisition of a pass in TET by a teacher appointed prior to 29.07.2011 would affect his/her continuance in service and drawal of increment, without seeking for further promotion to the post of BT Assistant/Graduate Teacher."

WHETHER TET IS A NECESSARY MANDATE FOR TEACHERS APPOINTED IN MINORITY SCHOOLS 71.1. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petitions leading to these writ appeals would indicate that the fact that the teachers, in respect of whom approval of appointment was sought for by the school, did not possess TET pass eligibility was not a ground for refusal for grant of appointment approval, nor was it an issue raised before the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petitions. Only in the writ appeals, the State Government has raised an additional ground that the teachers whose appointment approval was sought for, did not possess TET. Notwithstanding the same, it is hereby clarified that by virtue of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India, [(2014) 8 SCC 1], wherein, it was held that the RTI Act, 2009 insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution, meaning thereby that the 2009 Act will not apply to minority schools, the eligibility of TET pass as required for appointment of teachers in non-minority schools, will not apply to minority schools. In other words, the approval of appointment of teachers in minority schools, both aided and unaided, cannot be refused or rejected on the ground that they do not possess a pass in TET. Further, this specific issue is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, cited supra, holds the filed as on today. For these reasons, the order of the Learned Judge in the writ petitions is affirmed and the above four writ appeals are dismissed.

"74. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the upshot of the above discussion is as under: (a)Any teacher appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher or Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion. (b)Any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher after 29.07.2011 must necessarily possess TET. (c)Any appointment made to Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant, after 29.07.2011, whether by direct recruitment or promotion from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, or transfer, must necessarily possess TET. The principles laid down in this judgment will not have application to minority schools both aided and unaided as explained in paragraph no.71.1. (d)The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service issued in GO (Ms.) No.13 School Education (S.E3(1)) Department dated 30.01.2020 insofar as it prescribes “a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)” only for direct recruitment for the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion thereto in Annexure-I (referred to in Rule 6) is struck down, thereby meaning that TET is mandatory/essential eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of BT Assistant even by promotion from Secondary Grade Teachers. (e)The language employed in G.O. (Ms) No. 181 dated 15.11.2011 is to be read and understood to the effect that for continuance in service without promotional prospects, TET is not mandatory."

6.A reading of the above judgment would make it clear that any appointment made to Graduate Teacher / B.T. Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024

7.Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, wherein, the appellant / writ petitioner joined as B.T. Assistant on 15.06.2011 in the fourth respondent school, this court is of the opinion that she is entitled for continuance of service with annual increments and incentives, without a pass in TET. However, for future promotional aspects, the appellant must necessarily possess TET. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment dated 02.06.2023, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.

8.Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                      [R.M.D, J.]    [M.S.Q, J.]
                                                                              07.02.2024
                Neutral Citation : Yes/No
                gya

                To
                1.The Director of School Education
                DPI Campus, College Road
                Chennai 600 006

                2.The Chief Educational Officer
                Kancheepuram District
                Kancheepuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                7/9
                                                                    W.A.No.392 of 2024

                3.The District Educational Officer
                St. Thomas Mount, Chrompet
                Kancheepuram District

                4.The Secretary

Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059

5.The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006

6.The Secretary to Government Union of India Department of School Educational and Literacy Ministry of Human Resource development 217-C, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 001

7.The Member Secretary National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka New Delhi 110 075 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 W.A.No.392 of 2024 R. MAHADEVAN, J.

AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.



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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           RESERVED ON : 11.01.2022
                                          PRONOUNCED ON : 10.03.2022
                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

                                            W.P.(MD)No.13498 of 2019
                                                     and
                                           W.M.P.(MD)No.10028 of 2019

                     V.Venugopal                                        ...Petitioner

                                                              /Vs./

                     1.The District Educational Officer,
                     Office of the District Educational Officer,
                     Sivagangai.

                     2.The Block Development Officer,
                     Thiruppuvanam,
                     Sivagangai District.

                     3.The Member Secretary,
                     National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE),
                     Hans Bhawan, Wing II,
                     1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
                     New Delhi – 110 002.

                     4.The Joint Secretary (SE-1),
                     Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),
                     Department of School Education and Literacy,
                     Shastri Bhawan,
                     New Delhi – 110 001.                               ...Respondents



                     1/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     (R3 & R4 are impleaded vide order of this Court dated 24.06.2019 in
                     WMP(MD)No.10565 of 2019)


                     PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

                     India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the

                     respondents to promote the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (English) by

                     taking his qualification of passing T.E.T. paper - II and by considering

                     his representation dated 02.01.2019.

                                              For Petitioner    : Mr.J.Anandkumar
                                              For R1 & R2       : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
                                                                  Special Government Pleader
                                              For R4            : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
                                                           Central Government Standing Counsel

                                                          ORDER

A watershed event in the history of India took place on 23.08.2010 with the passing of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘RTE Act’). The Act recognised the fundamental right of children within the age group of 6 to 14 years to free and compulsory education and by teachers who possessed and/or acquired the necessary qualifications to be able to instruct them in an appropriate and wholesome manner.

2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. Section 23 of the Act which came into force on and from 01.04.2010, reads as follows:

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, authorised 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 or 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:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.

3.A Notification came to be issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (in short ‘NCTE’) which was constituted as the nodal body for implementation of the Act in F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE. (N&S) dated 23.08.2010 (in short ‘2010 Notification’).

4.The 2010 Notification stipulated minimum qualifications for eligibility for appointment as a teacher in classes 1 to 8 that’s are as follows:

3/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ‘1. Minimum Qualifications:-

                                  (i)    Classes I-V
                                  (a)    Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45%

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 for its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Education (Special Education) 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) 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 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.’

5.Clauses 2 & 3 provide respectively that only a Diploma/Degree holder in Teachers’ education as recognised by the NCTE shall be considered for appointment making an exception in the subject of special education to say that a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) shall be taken as equivalent to a Diploma in Education (Special Education) or a B.Ed., (Special Education).

6.Clause 3 stipulates the training to be undergone by a candidate with B.Ed.,/B.sc., and the qualifications that she/he should possess for eligibility as follows:

3. Training to be undergone – A person – (a) with BA.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, 2019, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month programme in Elementary Education. 5/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.Clause 4 deals with teachers who had been appointed prior to the date of the Notification and is a saving Clause, in a way, reading as follows:

“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-3" 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 of 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 1to 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 3" September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.”

8.Clause 5 deals with a situation where a Government/Local Authority/Schools had initiated the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of the Notification and permits such appointments to be made in accordance with the NCTE Regulations that were in vogue at that relevant point in time.

6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.Thus, to my mind, the sum and substance of the 2010 Notification is that a Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as a mandate, stands imposed upon fresh appointments to be initiated and made after 23.08.2010, and appointments that had been either made prior to 23.08.2010 or in respect of which the process had been initiated prior to 23.08.2010 would not be disturbed/would not be visited with the changed qualifications that had been imposed under the 2010 Notification.

10.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No.181 School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 making the TET compulsory and the relevant portions of the G.O read as follows:

ABSTRACT School Education - The Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act(RTE)-2009 conducting of Teacher Eligibility Test(TET) - Orders - Issued.

                                                     School Education (C2) Department
                                  G.O.Ms No.181                                            Dated:
                                                                             15.11.2011
                                                                                            Read:

1. G.O.Ms.No.220, School Education(S2)Departnnent Dated: 10.11.2008. 2. Governnnent Letter No.15152/C2/2006-9, Dated: 9.10.2006. 3. Fronn the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, Letter No.76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad, Dated 11.2.2011 ORDER: The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted by the Parliament in 2009 to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6-14 years. The Act 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was published in the Gazette of India on 27th August 2009. Subsequently, the said Act was republished by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 24th February 2010. The said Act came into force with effect from 1st April 2010. 2. As per sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has been appointed as the Academic Authority by Government of India. The said Academic Authority has indicated to all the States that the teachers to be recruited in future for the elementary segment should have passed the "Teacher Eligibility Test"(TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education for the purpose. 3. The said section clearly specifies that teachers who at the commencement of this Act, do not possess minimum qualifications as prescribed by the Academic Authority authorized by the Central Government shall acquire - 2 - such minimum qualifications within a period of 5 years. Hence, the "Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)" would have to be conducted for recruiting teachers for the primary and upper primary classes. The teachers working in unaided private schools are required to pass Teacher Eligibility Test within 5 years. In the State of Tamil Nadu, Secondary Grade Teachers (those teaching classes I to V) are required to have minimum qualifications of D.T.Ed. and Graduate Assistants (BT Assistant) (those teaching classes VI to VIII) are required to have minimum qualification of B.Ed. They should also pass Teacher Eligibility Test forthwith. 


4. However, with the passing of the RTE Act, it is now mandatory for all the State Governments to recruit Secondary Grade and BT teachers only by conducting a Teacher Eligibility Test. 5. In the G.O. 1st read above, orders have been issued as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 20.8.2008 in SLP (c) No. 18227 - 18228/2008 that the State Government should followed the State wide seniority in employment registration while appointing Secondary Grade Teachers by calling for the list of eligible persons from all the District Employment Exchanges and by newspaper Public Advertisements throughout the State. The Supreme Court has further directed that the aforesaid arrangement will apply for any recruitment to be made pending disposal of these appeals. 6. In the Government letter 2"'* read above, the Government 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis changed the recruitment policy in 2006-07 for recruiting Graduate Assistants, from written examination to State wide registration seniority in Employment Exchange. 7. The Government carefully examined on the lines of the orders of Supreme Court of India in SLP(c) No.18227- 18228 dated 20.8.2008 and National Council for Teacher Education guidelines and issue the following orders in respect of change of policy for recruitment of Secondary Grade and B.T Teachers.

i. In respect of Secondary Grade Teachers, the statewide seniority in Employment Exchange Registration will continue to be followed till the disposal of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court of India.

ii. In respect of Graduate Assistants (B.T.Teachers recruited by TRB for the Classes VI to X) in all middle schools, High/Higher Secondary Schools, selection through written examinations ("Teacher Eligibility Test” ) in accordance with the guidelines framed by National Council for Teacher Education and certificate verification, will be followed.

iii The Teachers Recruitment Board is designate as the Nodal Agency for conducting of Teacher Eligibility Test and recruitment of Teachers.

8. Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test is enclosed in the Annexure to the Government Order.

                                                                       //By Order of Governor//
                                                                       (emphasis       by     underlining
                                                                       supplied)



 






 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Thursday, November 16, 2023

UPTET Shiksha Mitra   News - 

a




 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Friday, June 9, 2023

अन्तर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण : 20 दिन के अंदर ट्रांसफर की कार्यवाही होगी पूरी , आवेदन करने का डायरेक्ट लिंक UP BASIC TEACHER TRANSFER


अन्तर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण : 20 दिन के अंदर ट्रांसफर की कार्यवाही होगी पूरी , आवेदन करने का डायरेक्ट लिंक UP BASIC TEACHER TRANSFER



➡ _अन्तर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण की समस्त कार्यवाही राष्ट्रीय सूचना विज्ञान केन्द्र उ0प्र0 लखनऊ द्वारा विकसित पोर्टल👉  interdistricttransfer.upsdc.gov.in के माध्यम से सम्पादित की जायेगी।

_*अंतर्जनपदीय स्थानांतरण कार्यक्रम की समय सारणी*_

➡ _1-पोर्टल पर आवेदन 9 से 14 जून_

➡ _2-बीएसए द्वारा सत्यापन व डेटा लाक कार्यवाही 10 से 18 जून_

➡ _3-एनआईसी द्वारा ट्रांसफर की कार्यवाही 19 जून से 22 जून_

➡ _4-ट्रांसफर के पश्चात कार्यमुक्ति 27 जून से_





 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Saturday, February 25, 2023

चीफ जस्टिस बेंच: शिक्षक अंतर् जनपदीय ट्रांसफर के लिए कई बार आवेदन कर सकते हैं

चीफ जस्टिस बेंच: शिक्षक अंतर् जनपदीय ट्रांसफर के लिए कई बार आवेदन कर सकते हैं 

 चीफ जस्टिस बेंच ने महिला शिक्षकों की सिर्फ एक बार ट्रांसफर आवेदन देने के मोके को गलत माना, कहा की सिंगल  बेंच से गलती हुई, ट्रांसफर नियमावली 1981 और 2008 में कहीं भी सिर्फ एक बार मौका देने को नहीं लिखा , और कहा की हमें शासनादेश में हस्तक्षेप करना पड़ रहा है  के ट्रांसफर आवेदन में सिर्फ एक बार मौका देने को बाध्य नहीं किया जा सकता , और आगे भी आवेदन कर सकता है 



Court - but could not show any provision to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.

 Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rulesrather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. 

we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. 



Allahabad High Court
Shobha Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 466 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Shobha Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

In Re: Exemption Application Exemption application is allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 03.11.2020, passed by this Court.

In Re: Special Appeal Heard Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 03.11.2020. An application to seek leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant because his rights are affected by the judgement.

The application to seek leave to appeal is allowed, as being not opposed by the petitioner/non-appellant so as the State Government and otherwise, we find that the appellant is affected by the outcome of the judgement under challenge.

The writ petition filed by the petitioners has been decided after detailed discussion of the issues. The learned Single Judge, thereupon, gave following directions for its general application:-

"64. Since in this judgment I have already held Clauses 2(1)(A),(B) of the Government order dated 2nd December, 2019 to be contrary and in conflict with the statutory rules contained under the posting Rules, 2008 and clause 16 to be contradictory to the clause 15 of the Government order and also defeating the very objective sought to be achieved under the posting rules, 2008 in the light of the objectives set forth under the Right to Free Education for all Act, 2009 and Clause 15 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019 be read down in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment for female candidates as they may be specially circumstanced, I come to conclude with following observations/ directions to be necessarily kept in mind before finalizing the list of teachers seeking inter-district transfer:-

(I) No inter district transfer shall be done in the mid of the academic session.

(II) Transfer application should be entertained strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b) and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.

(III) Once a teacher has successfully exercised the option for inter district transfer, no second opportunity shall be afforded to any teacher of any category except in case of female teacher who has already availed benefit of inter district transfer on the ground of parents dependency, prior to her marriage. However, in case if the marriage has taken place then she will have only one opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer either on the ground of parents dependency or spouse residence/ in-laws residence.

(IV) In case of grave medical emergency for any incurable or serious disease that may as of necessity, require immediate medical help and sustained medical treatment, either personally or for the spouse, a second time opportunity to apply for inter district transfer should be afforded to such a teacher even if he/she had exercised such option for inter district transfer for any other reason in the past.

(V) Application of differently abled person should have very sympathetic consideration looking to physical disability but they should also have only one time opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer. In case of female teachers, such exception would apply, as referable to rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.

(VI) In case of female teacher's right to seek transfer, relaxation given under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule 8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be subject to rule 8(2) (b).

(VII) Save as observed and directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV and V), no second opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer be made available to any candidate of any category whatsoever.

(VIII) The exercise of inter-district transfer since is exception to the general rule of appointment and posting, every application for transfer has to be addressed to by the competent authority keeping in mind the objectives set forth under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2010 and must be acceded to citing a special circumstance specific to the case considered."

The only question raised before us is with regard to denial of second application for inter-district transfer. The learned Single Judge has restricted the number of application to seek inter-district transfer. It has been directed that after one application, the employee would not be entitled to move second application for his inter-district transfer; other than, in the exceptional circumstances carved out by the learned Single Judge. The direction, aforesaid, is said to be in violation of Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules of 1981') and Rule 8 of the U.P. Teachers Posting Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called as, 'the Rules of 2008'). Both the Rules are quoted herein-below for a ready reference:-

"Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981: Procedure for Transfer- There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board shall be necessary.

Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008: Posting - (1) (a) Three options for schools shall be asked from the handicapped candidates in order of their merit and after receiving such option the handicapped candidates shall be posted on the basis of option given by them and the vacancies.

(b) Based on the order of their merit, female teachers would be required to submit under their signature option of three schools each from the general and backward block and accordingly, posting would be given in one of these schools.

(c) The posting of male teachers shall be made in accordance with the order of candidates in the roster prepared under Rule 7.

(2)(a) The newly appointed male teachers shall initially be posted compulsorily in backward areas for a period of at least five years.

(b) Newly appointed female teachers shall also be compulsorily posted in backward area for a period of at least two years.

(c) Mutual transfers within the district from general block and backward block and vice-versa would be permitted with the condition that the teacher on mutual transfer to a backward block shall have to serve in that block compulsorily for five years. Mutual transfers would be permitted only in case of those teachers who have more than remaining five year's service.

(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district.

(e) If by virtue of posting of newly appointed or promoted teachers the primary and upper primary schools of backward blocks get saturated i.e. no post of teacher is vacant in these schools, then handicapped and female teachers on their choice can be adjusted against the vacant posts of general blocks from these saturated blocks.

(f) Mutual transfers of male/female teachers from one backward blocks to another can be considered.

(3) Teachers transferred from one district to another will be given posting as per the provision of these rules."

Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981, quoted above, imposes a bar on transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district, except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher.

The transfer from one district to another has not been permitted as a course, but can be made on the request or with the consent of the teacher. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 also provides that in normal circumstances, the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting, but under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district. Both the rules do not preclude number of applications for seeking inter-district transfers.

In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to bar second application for inter-district transfer. The transfer of teachers, otherwise, remains in the domain of the State Government and thereby, mere submission of the application does not create any right in favour of the employee to seek transfer. It remains at the discretion of the Government. If a teacher gives one application for inter-district transfer and is accepted, the Rule does not bar further transfer by making an application. It is more so, when, on seeking inter-district transfer, one loses his seniority. He/she is placed at the bottom of the seniority of the district he/she is transferred.

The restraint imposed by the learned Single Judge on second application for inter-district transfer is de hors the Rules.

The counsel for the petitioner has supported the appeal. He submits that there was no prayer in the writ petition to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer after first application has been accepted or rejected; rather, the Government Order, imposing prohibition to make second application for inter-district transfer, was challenged. It was for the reason that the condition imposed by the administrative order was de hors the Rules. When the Rules do not prohibit second application, it could not have been imposed by an administrative order.

The prayer is, accordingly, to modify the judgement of the learned Single Judge by accepting the appeal.

The counsel appearing for the State has, initially, opposed the appeal, but could not show any provision to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer. In a case where the first application for inter-district transfer is accepted and one is transferred to another district, the Rules do not cast a bar on another application later on to seek inter-district transfer. It is specially when making an application does not create a right of transfer. The transfer, otherwise, affects the employee in order of seniority. The learned Standing Counsel is fair enough to accept that there is no bar under the Rules to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.

In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rulesrather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.

With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.

If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.

Order Date :- 15.7.2021 LN Tripathi    


कोर्ट ने एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से महिला शिक्षकों की विशिष्ट परिस्थिति को जाँच ट्रांसफर का मौका देने को कहा गया

 कोर्ट ने एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से महिला शिक्षकों की विशिष्ट परिस्थिति को जाँच ट्रांसफर का मौका देने को कहा गया 


Allahabad High Court
Manju Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
AFR
 

 
Judgment Reserved on : 14.09.2022
 
Judgment Delivered on: 23.11.2022
 

 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17977 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Manju Pal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Lakshmi Kant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6262 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Alka Malik
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Jai Krishna Tiwari
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5961 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Pooja Jaiswal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13587 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Heena Parveen
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Daya Ram
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13798 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Nazneem Fatima
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13900 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Deepshiksha Kesharwani
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Arun Kumar
 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3203 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Deepti Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Tiwari,Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Sharma,Jai Krishna Tiwari,Navin Kumar Sharma,A/N0128,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13909 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Dipali Vishnoi
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16268 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Neeraj Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16307 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Mahe Anjum
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Ganesh Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14492 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Manju Lata And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ram Bilas Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. All the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The Writ Petition (A) No.17977 of 2021 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.

2. Heard Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.2 & 4 as also learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents.

3. The writ petition (Writ-A No.17977 of 2021) has been filed assailing the order dated 31.12.2020 downloaded from the website of the U.P. Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for Inter-District Transfer from Bahraich to Bareilly, has been rejected on the ground that the transfer sought was an aspirational district transfer and not permitted under the Government Order dated 02.12.2019.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in District Bahraich vide order dated 31.12.2015 and joined her services on 01.01.2016. In the year 2019 the petitioner was placed in Primary School Ahiraura, Block Chhitaura, District Bahraich under placement order dated 05.12.2019 and joined the said institution on 16.12.2019. The husband of the petitioner is running a business in District Bareilly. The petitioner has two children, 11 years old and 3 years old and both are residing at Bareilly along with their father and grandparents. The petitioner herself is a cancer patient whose treatment is going on at Kishlata Cancer Hospital, Bareilly. The petitioner is stated to be on medical leave and undergoing chemotherapy at Bareilly. The cancer has also affected the lungs of the petitioner and she is also undergoing treatment for her lung ailment at Yashoda Cancer Institute at Ghaziabad. Relevant documents have been filed on record to establish that the petitioner is a cancer patient and is undergoing treatment. The petitioner has sought Inter-District Transfer on medical grounds considering her ailment to District Bareilly from District Bahraich her present place of posting.

5. It is contended that the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 have been framed under Section 19 (1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules provides for Inter-District Transfer. Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 also relates to transfer of the teachers. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 02.12.2019 laying down the policy for the year 2019-20 for Inter-District Transfer. Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 imposes restriction upon the teachers appointed in the aspirational districts like Siddharth Nagar, Shravasti, Bahraich, Sonebhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. The Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019 is being reproduced here under:-

"13. आकांक्षी (Aspirational) जनपदों यथा-सिद्धार्थनगर, श्रावस्ती, बहराइच, सोनभद्र, चन्दौली, फतेहपुर, चित्रकूट एवं बलरामपुर में से प्रत्येक जनपद से उतने ही अध्यापकों को अन्यत्र जनपदों में स्थानान्तरित किया जायेगा, जितने अध्यापकों द्वारा अन्य जनपदों से सम्बन्धित आकांक्षी जनपद में आने के लिए स्थानान्तरण हेतु अनुरोध किया जायेगा। परन्तु, यह प्रावधान भारतीय सेना/वायु सेना/नौ सेना/अर्ध सैनिक बलों यथा, CRPF/ CISF/ SSB/ASSAM RIFLES/ITBP/NSG/BSF, से सम्बन्धित प्रकरणों पर लागू नही होगा। "

6. The Government Order dated 02.12.2019 came to be challenged in a bunch of writ petitions leading amongst them being Writ (A) No.878 of 2020 (Divya Goswami Vs. State of U.P. and others). The writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 03.11.2020. The Court concluded that the following observations/directions be necessarily kept in mind before finalizing the list of teachers seeking inter-district transfer:-

"(I) No inter district transfer shall be done in the mid of the academic session.

(II) Transfer application should be entertained strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b) and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.

(III) Once a teacher has successfully exercised the option for inter district transfer, no second opportunity shall be afforded to any teacher of any category except in case of female teacher who has already availed benefit of inter district transfer on the ground of parents dependency, prior to her marriage. However, in case if the marriage has taken place then she will have only one opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer either on the ground of parents dependency or spouse residence/ in-laws residence.

(IV) In case of grave medical emergency for any incurable or serious disease that may as of necessity, require immediate medical help and sustained medical treatment, either personally or for the spouse, a second time opportunity to apply for inter district transfer should be afforded to such a teacher even if he/she had exercised such option for inter district transfer for any other reason in the past.

(V) Application of differently abled person should have very sympathetic consideration looking to physical disability but they should also have only one time opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer. In case of female teachers, such exception would apply, as referable to rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.

(VI) In case of female teacher's right to seek transfer, relaxation given under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule 8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be subject to rule 8(2) (b).

(VII) Save as observed and directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV and V), no second opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer be made available to any candidate of any category whatsoever.

(VIII) The exercise of inter-district transfer since is exception to the general rule of appointment and posting, every application for transfer has to be addressed to by the competent authority keeping in mind the objectives set forth under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2010 and must be acceded to citing a special circumstance specific to the case considered."

7. The order dated 03.11.2020 was modified by the Court vide order dated 03.12.2020 to the extent that and the Direction No.1 in the order dated 03.11.2020 would not be pressed in the cases of medical emergency thus permitting transfers in mid academic session. The medical emergency cases were required to be dealt with by the Government strictly in accordance with its own guidelines and the prescribed procedure to identify such cases which were to be religiously followed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the decision of this Court in the case of Divya Goswami (supra) the State Government issued Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and circular dated 17.12.2020. Both the Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and the circular did not contain any restriction with regard to aspirational districts. He submits that Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 provided that from the aspirational districts only such number of teachers would be transferred as the number of requests for transfer from other districts to the said districts are received. The Government Order dated 02.12.2019 having been struck down by this Court and the State Government having issued the Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and circular dated 17.12.2020 which did not provide anything about the aspirational districts, the inter-district transfer request of the petitioner was required to be considered positively and was not liable to be rejected. Reliance is also placed upon a Government Order dated 29.03.2018 which provides in Clause II(vii) that transfers out of aspirational districts could be considered after two years of the posting by accepting options. Reliance is also placed upon information received under the Right to Information Act from Government of India, Niti Ayog, New Delhi obtained on 18.01.2021 to demonstrate that now no restrictions have been imposed by the Central Government as regards Inter District Transfers of Teachers and the same is within the domain of the State Government. It is thus contended that in the absence of any restrictions imposed by subsequent Government Orders regarding Inter-District Transfers the request of transfer of the petitioner is liable to be considered under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2008 and Rule 21 of the 1981 Rules.

9. Per contra, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has resisted by the writ petition by filing counter affidavit sworn by the Block Education Officer District Bahraich and submits that the entire proceedings of Inter-District Transfer of teachers working in Institutions run by the Basic Education Board is done through a software developed by NIC in accordance with the provisions contained in the Government Order issued by the Basic Education Department. For the Academic Session 2019-20, a transfer policy was framed vide Government Order dated 02.12.2019. Clause 13 of the Government Order imposes restriction upon Inter-District Transfers and provides that from the districts Siddharth Nagar, Shravasti, Bahraich, Sonebhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur only such number of teachers would be transferred as the number of requests for transfer from other districts to the said districts are received. The validity of the said clause has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ (A) No.9177 of 2021 (Aradhana and another vs. State of U.P. & 5 others) decided on 05.08.2021. Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 provides for fixation of preferential points and the transfer requests shall be entertained on the basis of the preferential points obtained by each candidate seeking transfer.

10. It is next contended by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the writ petitioner in her online application (Registration No.50374966) opted for being transferred to district Bareilly, Pilibhit and Budaun. The petitioner has been awarded 4 marks for tenure of service, 10 marks for serious disease of self, 5 marks for being female teacher, total marks 19 but her case has not been considered on account of transfer being sought from aspirational districts as the same has been restricted by Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019. The petitioner, admittedly, does not fall under any of the exempted categories under the said Clause. It is submitted that the claim of transfer from aspirational districts has been laid to rest by a decision this Court dated 13.8.2018 passed in Writ (A) No.14395 of 2018 (Smt. Ruchi vs. State of U.P. and others) and 126 connected writ petitions by holding that the writ petitioners working in aspirational districts have no right for Inter District Transfer. Petitioner does not have any legally protected or judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus for transfer from the aspirational district. Therefore her application for Inter-District Transfer have been lawfully rejected in view of the decision of the Board.

11. It is further submitted that the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School is a district level cadre and Inter-District Transfer is an exceptional measure not to be made routinely except in terms of Rule 21 of the 1981 Rules. It is thus submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the averments made in the counter affidavit by filing rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that the respondents have been adopting pick and choose policy in affecting the inter-district transfers. At one instance the genuine transfer request of the petitioner has been denied on the ground that the transfer is being sought from an aspirational district and on the other hand several transfers have been affected from aspirational districts of Bahraich to Hapur, Bahraich to Lakhimpur Kheri, Bahraich to Unnao, Bahraich to Barabanki. Documents to substantiate the plea have been filed as Annexures RA-1 to RA-6. It is further contended that the case of the writ petitioner is liable to be considered in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Divya Goswami (Supra).

13. Having heard the respective learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that the case of the writ petitioner has not be considered only on the ground that the transfer is being sought from an aspirational district and such transfers from aspirational districts have been not permitted by Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019.

14. The Court further finds that the aspirational districts programme was launched by the Prime Minister in January, 2018 which aimed to quickly and effectively transform 112 most under developed districts across the country. The broad contours of the programme are convergence (of Central, State Schemes) Collaboration (of Central, State Level Nodal Officers & District Collectors) and competition among districts through monthly delta ranking; all driven by a mass movement. This programme focuses on the strength of each district, identifying low handing fruits for immediate improvement and measuring progress by ranking districts on a monthly basis. The ranking is based on the incremental progress made across 49 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) under 5 Broad Socio-Economic Themes i.e. Health and Nutrition, Education, Agriculture & Water Resources, Financial Inclusion & Skill Development and Infrastructure.

15. The Court further finds that a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the issues of Inter-District Transfers as also the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 laying down the Transfer Policy for 2019-20 in the case of Divya Goswami (Supra) deliberately did not deal with the Inter-District Transfers from aspirational districts and to the restrictions imposed by Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 presumably on the ground that the issue of transfer from aspirational districts stood decided by the decisions rendered in Writ (A) No.9177 of 2021 (Aradhana and another Vs. State of U.P. & 5 others) as also Writ (A) No.14395 of 2018 (Smt. Ruchi Vs. State of U.P. & others) and 126 connected writ petitions holding that candidates working in aspirational districts have no right to seek transfer from aspirational districts. However, the Transfer Policy evolved subsequent to the decision of this Court in the case of Divya Goswami (Supra) vide Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and Circular dated 17.12.2020 do not impose any restriction for Inter-District Transfer from aspirational districts. In the opinion of the Court, the request of the petitioner for transfer from District Bahraich to District Bareilly is required to be sympathetically considered in the light of the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Teachers (Posting) Rules 2008, read with Rule 21 of the Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as also any policy framed by the State Government for Inter-District Transfer. Admittedly, no policy for effecting Inter-District Transfer is in vogue currently.

16. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Basic Institution is a Member of District Level Cadre, which has been allotted to her after considering the preference of the teachers concerned. Being a Member of of District Level Cadre, the petitioner is required to remain posted within the cadre and transfer beyond the cadre/outside the district is ordinarily not concerned under the Rules. A transfer outside the district can be considered in normal circumstances only in accordance with the Rules. Rule 8(2)(d) of the Posting Rules, 2008 provides that in normal circumstances the applications for Inter-District Transfer of Female Teachers will not the entertained before 5 years of completing their posting. However, the Rule contemplates that in exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances an application for transfer can be considered by the Basic Education Board/Director (Basic Education) even before the expiry of such term. The question whether in a given case the exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances exists or not has to be examined by the Basic Education Board/Director (Basic Education).

17. In such circumstance, the writ petition stands disposed of by permitting the petitioner to represent the matter before the Director, Basic Education, U.P., annexing all the materials in support of her plea that there exists exceptional circumstances justifying her transfer from district Bahraich to district Bareilly along with certified copy of the order of this Court within two weeks from today.

18. In the eventuality of such a representation being filed within the time allowed, it is expected that the Director, Basic Education, U.P., shall examine as to whether the ground on which the petitioner is seeking her transfer would fall within the exceptional circumstances or not and pass a reasoned and speaking order within further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner along with certified copy of this order.

19. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/ directions.

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 pks (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) 


Tuesday, August 9, 2022

पति पत्नी अगर दोनो सरकारी सेवा में है तो दोनो को यथा संभव निकटस्थ पोस्टिंग , कोर्ट डायरेक्शन

पति पत्नी अगर दोनो सरकारी सेवा में है तो दोनो को यथा संभव निकटस्थ पोस्टिंग , कोर्ट डायरेक्शन

चाइल्ड केयर लीव आदि भी परिवार बच्चों का ध्यान रखने के लिए थी,
और पति पत्नी को निकटस्थ पोस्टिंग भी उसी दिशा में एक पहल थी

देखें इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट का आदेश :


Allahabad High Court
Soma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 26 August, 2019
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari


Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12292 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Soma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Shashi Kant Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the District Basic Shisha Adhikari vide order dated 5.9.2018 and posted at Primary School Kota, Block Obara, District Sonbhadra and submitted her joining on 1.10.2018. Husband of petitioner is a computer operator in Police Department, U.P. and posted at District Rampur, which is at very long distance from District Sonbhadra. 


He next submitted that as per Para 1 of Sub-para Gha of Transfer Policy of State Goverment dated 3.5.2017 provides that if husband and wife both are in service, as far as possible, they shall be posted at one place. 


He further submitted this Court in the matter of Bibha Singh Kushwaha Vs. U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and 3 others has held that if husband and wife both are in service, they shall be posted at same place.


 Petitioner moved an application dated 8.7.2019 before the respondent no.2 for her transfer from District Sonbhadra to Rampur or nearby Districts i.e. Moradabad, Amroha and Bijnor, but till date same has not been decided. Lastly, he submitted that a suitable direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and transfer the petitioner to District Rampur or other adjoining Districts.

Mr. Shashi Kant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that application of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 8.7.2019 strictly in accordance with law maximum within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petitioner is also given liberty to file fresh application alongwith certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is upon the respondent no.2 to decide the application of the petitioner after considering the Rules and Government Order occupying the field.

Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Junaid  





 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Saturday, July 9, 2022

Child care leave का स्पष्ट कारण नहीं देने की वजह से रिजेक्ट कर दी गई थी, कोर्ट ने कहा की कंडीशंस में 18 वर्ष से कम आयु के बच्चे की देखभाल के लिए लिखा है, कारणों का जिक्र नहीं

Child care leave का स्पष्ट कारण नहीं देने की वजह से रिजेक्ट कर दी गई थी, कोर्ट ने कहा की कंडीशंस में 18 वर्ष से कम आयु के बच्चे की देखभाल के लिए लिखा है, कारणों का जिक्र नहीं

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. - 5

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 117 of 2014

Petitioner :- Vijay Laxmi Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Baal Vikas Sewa & Pushtahar&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.
With the consent of parties' counsel, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage without calling for the counter affidavit.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the decision to reject the application for grant of Child Care Leave, communicated vide letter dated 13.11.2013.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get Child Care Leave of 730 days during the entire service period. The petitioner has availed 250 days' Child Care Leave till date. In view of the Office Orders dated 8.12.2008 and 11.4.2011 she shall be granted�Child Care Leave, however leave of 230 days has been rejected in a most arbitrary and illegal manner.
The learned Standing Counsel was granted time to seek instructions as to why Child Care Leave cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that since the Child Care Leave of 730 days is to be granted during the entire period of service to a female employee and the petitioner has already availed 250 days and she has not disclosed the reason to get the said leave, as such the application of the petitioner has been rejected.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel.
The Office Order dated 8.12.2008, which has been subsequently modified/clarified vide Office Order dated 11.4.2011 clearly stipulates that a female Government employee is entitled to get 730 days' leave as Child Care Leave during the entire service period, however the said office order indicates that certain conditions are required to be fulfilled to get the said leave, such as, child care leave shall not be granted more than three or four times during� one calender year, it shall not be granted for less than 15 days, the Child Care Leave shall not ordinarily be granted during the probationary period and the Child Care Leave shall be treated equivalent to the earned leave. It also provides that the Child Care Leave can be granted even if an employee has earned leave available to her credit.
The aforesaid office order does not stipulate any such conditions that once an employee has availed certain period of Child Care Leave she is not entitled to get the remaining period of leave in the near future or she has to give reasons to avail the further leave. The said order only stipulates a condition that the child of the employee shall be less than 18 years of age for that purpose.
In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the opposite parties should not have refused to grant of Child Care Leave to the petitioner.
The writ petition, as such, is disposed of with direction to the opposite party no.3/Chief Development Officer, Raibareli to reconsider the request of the petitioner for grant of�Child Care Leave and pass appropriate order in case the petitioner fulfils the requirement as stipulated in the Office Orders dated 8.12.2008 and 11.4.2011. Necessary order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The opposite parties shall also consider the request of the petitioner to regularize her absence by granting Child Care Leave from the back date.
Order Date :- 7.2.2014
Arjun/-



 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Saturday, May 7, 2022

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में शिक्षकों का दोबारा ट्रांसफर संभव , इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट का आदेश / 2nd Time Transfer Possible for UP Teacher

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में शिक्षकों का दोबारा ट्रांसफर संभव , इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट का आदेश  / 2nd Time Transfer Possible for UP Teacher


 शिक्षिका ने पहला ट्रांसफर कुशीनगर से फिरोजाबाद में  2013 में लिया था , उसके बाद शिक्षिका की शादी गौतमबुद्ध नगर स्थित शिक्षक से वर्ष 2014 में हो गयी , उनके दूसरी बार स्थानांतरण की प्रार्थना को विभाग ने ख़ारिज कर दिया था , जिस पर कोर्ट ने उसको सही नहीं माना और शिक्षिका को दोबारा ट्रांसफर के लिए
विभाग को इस पर विचार करने के लिए कहा

 

Court No. - 58

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10048 of 2018

Petitioner :- Smt. Richa Shukla And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandrakesh Rai

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the controversy raised in the present petition has already been answered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8075 of 2018. The order of this Court dated 2.4.2018 reads as under:-
"Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School and was posted at Kushi Nagar. After such initial appointment in the year 2009, petitioner sought her transfer and the same was allowed in the year 2013, whereby the petitioner was transferred to Firozabad. Petitioner contends that she got married in the year 2014 and that her husband, who is also an Assistant Teacher is posted at District- Gautam Budh Nagar. Petitioner accordingly has made her claim for transfer to Gautam Budh Nagar. Such claim of the petitioner, apparently, has been rejected on the ground that petitioner since has already been transferred in the past, and as such a prayer for transfer made on second occasion, cannot be considered. Clause-3 of the Government Order dated 13.06.2017 is relied upon for the purpose.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service condition of petitioner are governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting Rule-2008). Clause 8(2)(d) of the Rule is relied upon which reads as under:-
"(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district."
It is stated that the object and the provision clearly intends to protect the interest of a lady so that she is allowed be posted at a place where her husband is working. In the Rule, there is no provision which restricts such transfer in case the petitioner has availed of the transfer prior in point of time. The condition contained in the Government Order that such transfer would be considered only if it has not been availed in the past would ordinarily be followed but once the very object contained in the rule is shown to be frustrated, the Government Order would have to bend so as to secure the objective contained in the Rule itself. The decision of the respondents, therefore, not to consider petitioner's application for transfer cannot be sustained for the reasons recorded therein.
Rejection of petitioner's application therefore is set aside.
A direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's claim for transfer in terms of Rule-8(2)(d) of the Rules.
Such consideration shall be made by the authority concerned within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order".

Since the rejection of petitioner's� application for transfer is on identical ground, the order impugned dated 4.4.2018 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.�
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 8075 of 2018.
Order Date :- 17.4.2018