Sunday, April 27, 2014

RTE ACT NEWS : RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT IMPLEMENTATION FAILURE

RTE ACT NEWS : RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT IMPLEMENTATION FAILURE
Various News of RTE Act and Its Implementation in India :-



जागरूकता के अभाव में परवान नहीं चढ़ा आरटीई
RTE did not go through due to lack of awareness
नागौर।जरूरतमंद एवं असहाय बच्चों को निजी स्कूलों में नि:शुल्क प्रवेश देकर अच्छी शिक्षा देने के लिए वर्ष 2010 में लागू किया गया शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम उदासीनता के चलते परवान नहीं चढ़ पाया है। एक्ट को लागू किए हुए चार वर्ष पूरे हो रहे हैं, लेकिन आज भी इसकी स्थिति संतोषजनक नहीं है।


आरटीई के नियमों में पेचिदगियां इतनी है कि खुद अधिकारी भी समझ नहीं पाए हैं। आरटीई एक्ट को लेकर जागरूकता नहीं होने का परिणाम यह है कि जिले में 1600 से अधिक निजी स्कूलों के 10 हजार बच्चों को भी नि:शुल्क प्रवेश नहीं मिल रहा है, जबकि हर स्कूल को पहली कक्षा में 25 प्रतिशत बच्चों को नि:शुल्क प्रवेश देना अनिवार्य है। नियमानुसार कोई भी व्यक्ति, जिसकी मासिक आय 20 हजार 700 रूपए तक है, अपने बच्चे को क्षेत्र के निजी स्कूल में नि:शुल्क प्रवेश दिला सकता है। जहां उसके बच्चे को नि:शुल्क शिक्षण के साथ किताबें, स्कूल यूनिफॉर्म आदि भी फ्री दिए जाने हैं।

नियमावली स्पष्ट नहीं
आरटीई एक्ट की नियमावली खुद शिक्षा विभाग के अधिकारियों के लिए पहेली बनी हुई है। निजी स्कूल जरूरतमंद बच्चों को नि:शुल्क प्रवेश तो दे रहे हैं, लेकिन नियमों को लेकर गफलत होने से पुनर्भरण राशि नहीं मिल रही है। यह विडम्बना ही है कि आरटीई के एपीसी का पद साल भर से रिक्त है। जिले की स्थिति यह है कि निजी स्कूलों के संस्था प्रधानों को नियमों के मकड़जाल में फंसा रखा है। पुनर्भरण में भी अधिकारी अपनी मनमर्जी चला रहे हैं। - विनेश शर्मा, सचिव, निजी स्कूल एसोसिएशन, नागौर


नियमों की जटिलता बनी बाधक

एक्ट के नियमों की जटिलताओं का अंदाजा इसी से लगाया जा सकता है कि निजी स्कूलों द्वारा पुनर्भरण राशि के लिए पेश किए गए आवेदनों में से आधे तो ब्लॉक अधिकारियों के भौतिक सत्यापन में फर्जी घोषित हो रहे हैं।
एक्ट के अनुसार नि:शुल्क प्रवेश में वार्ड के बच्चे को वरियता दी जानी है। इसके बावजूद पूरे प्रवेश नहीं हो तो दूसरे वार्ड के बच्चों को प्रवेश दिया जाना चाहिए। इस वर्ष ऑनलाइन व्यवस्था होने से नि:शुल्क प्रवेश में स्कूल व बच्चे का वार्ड बदलते ही प्रवेश निरस्त मान लिया गया है। हाईकोर्ट के आदेश हैं कि किसी भी बच्चे को नि:शुल्क प्रवेश देकर बाहर नहीं निकाल सकते।


सरकार ने शिक्षण शुल्क, किताबें, यूनिफॉर्म व बस किराया मिलाकर पुनर्भरण की फीस 11 हजार 900 रूपए तय किए। इसके बाद शिक्षा विभाग ने निजी स्कूलों से शिक्षण शुल्क की जानकारी मांगी, स्कूलों ने भी केवल शिक्षण शुल्क की जानकारी दे दी। अब उन्हें पुनर्भरण का भुगतान भी मात्र शिक्षण शुल्क का ही हो रहा है, जबकि किताबें, यूनिफॉर्म व बस किराया भी देना चाहिए। इसी गफलत में बच्चों को बाकी का खर्चा उठाना पड़ रहा है

News Source / Sabhaar : rajasthanpatrika.patrika.com (26.04.2014/ Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:48:06)
*******************************

PIL: Rajasthan failed to implement RTE properly

 RTE properly|Rajasthan|PIL|
RELATED
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice to the state government on the tardy implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act in the state.

A bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice J K Ranka issued the notice on a PIL filed by Prof Rajiv Gupta and others. The government was asked to respond within four weeks. According to petitioner's counsel Pratik Kasliwal, the RTE Act came into force in April 2010 and a three-year time was given to all schools to improve basic infrastructure. However, even after three years, most of the schools are lacking basic infrastructure.

Also, all the aided and unaided private schools are under obligation to provide 25% reservation to children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups by virtue of Section 12 of RTE Act, 2009. Here too the state government failed to fulfill its legal duties properly, it was pointed out. The petition claims that the state government had failed to give wide interpretation to the term "children belonging to disadvantaged groups" as it only includes children of SC/ST/group having less than Rs 2.5 lakh annual income.

"There are many others like street kids, migrants, children in conflict regions, children of manual scavengers, sex workers and even those girls of upper caste and majority religion(s) who are not allowed to undergo education due to conservatism, patriarchy and orthodox beliefs, who are facing serious disadvantages too."


The state government vide notification dated March 29, 2011 specified the category of "children belonging to disadvantaged groups" but did not include the above categories of children, which is essential if the spirit of inclusiveness embedded in the RTE Act has to be followed.

The petition pointed out that the state government had failed to provide free pre-school education which would create a strong foundation for the children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in order to stand at par with other children of same age group.

It pleaded the court to ensure that schools which have pre-school education and are making fresh admission in pre-primary and Class 1 will have to conform to 25% reservation at all levels wherever fresh admissions are there. The admission process by lottery system should be conducted in front of all parents who have applied for such admission and in the presence of a functionary of the education department among others, it demanded.

News Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com (24.04.2014) / P J Joychen,TNN | Apr 24, 2014, 03.18 AM IST
**************************

Only 4% EWS parents aware of reservation under RTE Act: Study


The report was released at a Delhi state-wide conference on the Right to Education Act by Indus Action — an NGO.


Only four per cent of parents from economically weaker sections (EWS) are aware about the availability of 25 per cent seats under EWS category in the capital’s private schools, under the RTE Act, a study has shown.
The study also found that only half of these four per cent parents have managed to navigate through bureaucratic and psychological barriers to apply.
The report was released at a Delhi state-wide conference on the Right to Education Act by Indus Action — an NGO working exclusively towards implementation of Section 12(1)(C) clause of the RTE Act — with support from Central Square Foundation.
“The Right to Education has opened up many opportunities for children from economically weaker sections. Yet, despite the best efforts to spread awareness, eligible families seem to have little knowledge about the policy. Section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act has the potential to put roughly 10 million children across India on a different path in the next five years, making it the single largest opportunity seat scheme in the world. But we need a better state-wide implementation plan for that to happen,” Tarun Cherukuri, founder, Indus Action, said.
The report details on-ground implementation of the mandatory 25 per cent reservation for EWS children and those who are socially disadvantaged. It is based on responses from 350-odd families in South, Southeast, Southwest, North, Northeast and Central Delhi.
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act mandates that private unaided schools reserve 25 per cent of their seats in entry-level classes for EWS students and those from disadvantaged groups.
Even though awareness levels are low, the report states that eligible families were adequately equipped to apply.
“ 94.8 per cent people had at least one of the birth proof certificates. 96.85 per cent people had at least one of the accepted documents for address proof. And 82.8 per cent people had at least one of the accepted documents for proof of income,” the report states.
Yet, families chose not to apply, with the exception of four per cent families who did — high fees being a major concern discouraging them from applying to private schools.
The report notes that families did not approach government officials for information, relying instead on help from other families ( 29 per cent) and employers (28 per cent)
News Source : indianexpress.com (26.04.2014)
*******************
RTE कोटे से ऑनलाइन ऐडमिशन का हुआ आगाज
Apr 11, 2014, 08.30AM IST
Tweet
मुंबई:ऑनलाइन ऐडमिशन के जरिए भले ही सरकार गरीब वर्ग के बच्चों को शिक्षण सुविधा मुफ्त में देने की बात कही है पर, व्यावहारिक तौर पर देखें तो मुंबई स्थित 304 स्कूलों में से पंजिकृत हुए 282 स्कूलों में बच्चों को ऐडमिशन मिलना किसी चुनौती से कम नहीं है। अभिभावकों का आरोप है कि राइट टू एजुकेशन (RTE) के तहत जब स्कूलों में आवेदन करते हैं, तो अधिकतर स्कूल्स द्वारा उनके बेवसाइट पर RTE के बारे में कुछ जानकारी ही उपलब्ध नहीं है। इसके चलते अभिभावकों में उलझन हैं। इसके चलते ऑनलाइन ऐडमिशन का पहला दिन ही अभिभावकों के लिए परेशानी भरा रहा। गौरतलब है कि RTE को लेकर बीएमसी और शिक्षण विभाग में अनबन चल रही है। इस वजह से RTE के मुद्दे पर दोनों विभाग एक दूसरे पर लापरवाही का आरोप लगाते हुए आधिकारिक बयान से देने से कन्नी काट रहे हैं। 8 हजार सीटें के लिए 30 अप्रैल तक आवेदन किया जा सकता है। इस बाबत अनुदानित शिक्षा बचाव समिति के अध्यक्ष एस. एम. परांजपे द्वारा बीएमसी शिक्षणाधिकारी शुभांगी जोग से मुलाकात करने की बात समिति ने कही है।
-------------------------
पंजिकृत स्कूल: 282
हेल्प सेंटर्स:26
क्लास: नर्सरी, केजी, फर्स्ट क्लास

News Source / Sabhar : economictimes.indiatimes.com (11.04.2014)


Saturday, April 26, 2014

Decision Regarding TET in May 2012

Decision Regarding TET in May 2012


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1995 of 2011 (S/S)
Nirmal Kumar & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1674 of 2011 (S/S)
Smt. Sharda Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1540 of 2011 (S/S)
Manveer Singh & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1677 of 2011 (S/S)
Gopal Singh & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
4
with
Writ Petition No.1751 of 2011 (S/S)
Usha Pant
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1804 of 2011 (S/S)
Pawan Kumar Upadhyay
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1818 of 2011 (S/S)
Dayanand Tamta & Ors.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1831 of 2011 (S/S)
Km. Neha Saxena
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
5
with
Writ Petition No.1836 of 2011 (S/S)
Rakesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1866 of 2011 (S/S)
Madan Singh Bhaisora
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1905 of 2011 (S/S)
Smt. Jaya Chaudhary
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1931 of 2011 (S/S)
Lalit Mohan Upreti
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
6
with
Writ Petition No.1933 of 2011 (S/S)
Jagdish Chandra Pant
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1934 of 2011 (S/S)
Smt. Kalpana Joshi
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1935 of 2011 (S/S)
Rajni Raturi
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1939 of 2011 (S/S)
Yogesh Chandra
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
7
with
Writ Petition No.1941 of 2011 (S/S)
Ravindra Pratap Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1942 of 2011 (S/S)
Smt. Suchita Bisht
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1947 of 2011 (S/S)
Vineeta & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1950 of 2011 (S/S)
Renu Tamta & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Director School Education & Ors.
...Respondents
8
with
Writ Petition No.1952 of 2011 (S/S)
Lalit Mohan Joshi & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1978 of 2011 (S/S)
Manoj Joshi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1982 of 2011 (S/S)
Sumangal Mandal & Ors.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1984 of 2011 (S/S)
Brij Mohan Singh Negi
...Petitioner
Versus
Director School Educat
ion Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
9
with
Writ Petition No.1994 of 2011 (S/S)
Smt. Sarita Rani & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad & Anr.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.2004 of 2011 (S/S)
Narendra Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Director School Educat
ion Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.140 of 2012 (S/S)
Radha Ballabh & Anr.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
...Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.394 of 2012 (S/S)
Km. Sonam Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...Respondents
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Mr. H.M.
Bhatia, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Mr. G.S. Negi, Mr. Deepak Bisht, Mr. J.S. Bisht, Mr.
G.D. Joshi, Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Mr. Davesh
Bishnoi, Mr. P.S. Bisht, Mr. Vijay
10
Khanduri, Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Mr. D.S. Bisht, Mr. H.C. Joshi, Mr. B.D.
Pande, Mr. H.C. Pathak, Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate along with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Ms. Seema Sah and
Mr. Asif Ali, Advocates for the Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad
Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
In this group of petitions, the petitioners are
aggrieved by their failure in not qualifying the
U.T.E.T. Examination, 2011 conducted by
Uttarakhand Vidhyalayi Shiksha Parishad,
Ramnagar, District Nainital (respondent no.2) and
have consequently filed these writ petitions praying
that the respondents be directed to reduce the cut-
off marks from 60% to 50% and reconsider the
evidence given by the petitioners in support of the
disputed questions with regard to the key answers
given by the respondents.
The basic grievance of the petitioners is, that
there are 15 disputed questions, which in one form
or the other, are incorrect and consequently the
respondents are required to reconsider their
answers. According to the petitioners, model key
answers provided by the respondents are incorrect
in some of these disputed questions and that the
answers given by the petitioners are correct. In
some of the questions, there is a good chance that
there are two correct answers in the choice given
and therefore in such cases the candidate should
be awarded one mark in the event he answers any
of the two choices. In some of the questions, all the
four choices are correct and therefore one mark
11
should be awarded to all the candidates. The
petitioners consequently contended that the key
answers given by the respondents should be
reconsidered and revised accordingly. The
petitioners are further aggrieved by the qualifying
marks disclosed in the advertisement for qualifying
the U.T.E.T. Examination. According to the
petitioners, 60% is too high and there is no
rationale behind fixing such percentage. The third
grievance of the petitioners is, that the question
paper that was set by the respondents, was not in
accordance with the guidelines dated 11
th
Februrary, 2011 i.e. to say that the question on
method of teaching in Pedagogy, Mathematics,
Environmental Studies and Language was not given
whereas the guidelines contemplated that
questions on these areas would be asked. The
petitioners contended that since the questions were
not set in the manner disclosed in the guidelines,
which has a statutory flavour, the entire process
stood vitiated and a fresh examination should be
conducted.
In the light of the grievance stipulated
aforesaid, the Court has heard Sri Manoj Tiwari,
the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj
Tangwan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the leading case. The arguments of the learned
senior counsel was adopted by all the other
counsels, namely, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Mr. C.S. Rawat,
Mr. G.S. Negi, Mr. Deepak Bisht, Mr. J.S. Bisht,
16
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and
the terms and conditions of service of, teacher shall
be such as may prescribed.”
Rule 23 of The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 provides that
the Central Government shall notify an academic
authority for the purpose of providing a curriculum
and evaluation procedure for elementary education.
For facility, Rule 23 is extracted hereunder:-

23. Academic authority.
- (1) The Central
Government shall notify an academic authority for
the purposes of section 29 within one month of the
appointed date.
(2) While laying down the curriculum and
evaluation procedure, the academic authority
notified under sub-rule (1) shall,-
(a) formulate the relevant and age
appropriate syllabus and text books
and other learning material;
(b) develop in-service teacher training
design; and
(c) prepare guidelines for putting into
practice continuous and comprehensive
evaluation.
(3) The academic authority referred to in sub-
rule (1) shall design and implement a process of
holistic school quality assessment on a regular
basis.”
17
Based on the said provision, the Central
Government issued a notification dated 31
st
March,
2010, authorizing National Council for Teachers
Education (NCTE) to be the academic authority to
lay down the minimum qualifications for a person
to be eligible to the appointment of teachers.
Based on the aforesaid Notification dated 31
st
March, 2010, NCTE framed the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible to the
appointment of teachers by means of a Notification
dated 23
rd
August, 2010.
The minimum qualification for a person to be
eligible for appointment as a teacher for class I to V
as provided in the Notification dated 23
rd
August,
2010 is extracted hereunder:-
“ 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
18
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 Test (TET), to
be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the
NCTE for the purpose.”
The aforesaid indicates that a person should
have a Senior Secondary Decree or equivalent with
at least 50% marks with 2 year Diploma in
Elementary Education or Bachelor in Elementary
Education. In addition to the aforesaid, a person
should also have passed the Teachers Eligibility
Test. According to this Notification dated 23
rd
August, 2010, this Teachers Eligibility Test is
required to be conducted by the appropriate
Government in accordance with the guidelines
framed by NCTE for the purpose.
Based on the aforesaid, the NCTE framed the
guidelines dated 11
th
February, 2011. Some of the
25
been questioned nor the report submitted by the
Committee has been challenged before this Court.
It is settled law that the opinion given by an expert
in academic matters should not be interfered by a
Court of law in judicial review unless it is shown
that the expert opinion was palpably wrong and
erroneous. In the absence of challenging the report
of the Expert Committee or the constitution of the
expert body, it is not open to the petitioners to
contend that the key answers given by the
respondents should be re-examined by another
Committee constituted by this Court.
The Court further finds that no
malafides
has
been attributed against any members of the Expert
Body. The Supreme Court in
B.C. Mylarappa alias
Dr. Chikkamylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah
& Ors., 2008 (14) Supreme Court Cases 306,
has
held that in the absence of any malafides against
the members of the expert body, the opinion
expressed by the expert body cannot be said to be
illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court, in paragraph 26, held:
“26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to
show any mala fides attributed against the members
of the expert body of the University. The University
Authorities had also before the High Court in their
objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the
appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for
appointment. In this view of the matter and in the
26
absence of any mala fides either of the expert body
of the University or of the University Authorities and
in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it
would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High
Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its
recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid
and without jurisdiction.”
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the
opinion that it is not appropriate to constitute a
committee or direct the respondent no.2 to re-
examine their key answers and thereafter re-
examine the answer sheets of the petitioners. In the
absence of any statutory rules or regulations, the
examination paper of the petitioners cannot be re-
examined or re-evaluated as held in the case of
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs.
Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (Supra).
The contention that the qualifying marks of
60% is very high and consequently arbitrary, and
that, it has no rationale cannot be accepted. A
policy decision taken by the Government should
not be
interfered by the Court unless it is
demonstrated that such policy decision is
arbitrary or illogical. If
the policy decision is
discernible and has a
rationale behind it,
the
Court should not interfere in such policy decision.
In this light, the petitioners contend that the
qualifying marks disclosed in the advertisement
was too high. The Court finds that the percentage
27
of 60% as qualifying marks disclosed in the
advertisement was based on the guidelines framed
by NCTE dated 11
th
February, 2011. Clause 9 of
this guideline provides that the qualifying marks for
TET would be 60%. These guidelines have been
framed pursuant to the Notification dated 23
rd
August, 2010 issued u/s 23(1) of the RTE Act. A
reading of the Notification dated 23
rd
August, 2010
indicates that the guidelines framed by NCTE
would have a statutory flavour. Clause 9 of the
guidelines has not been questioned by the
petitioners. No prayer has been made for the
quashing of this clause. In the absence of not
challenging this provision, the Court does not find
any error in the advertisement, so issued,
indicating that the qualifying marks would be 60%.
In any case, it is a policy decision taken by the
State which is discernible. High standards have
been fixed. The NCTE in its wisdom has given high
standards to ensure that better education is
provided to the children in order to fulfill the
mandate of Article 21A read with 45 of the
Constitution, which the Court does not find it to be
arbitrary. In any case, the Court is of the opinion
that the Court should not take upon itself the task
of the statutory authorities and reduce the
percentage so long as the policy decision is not
arbitrary or illogical. The Court is loath to interfere.
It is upon the State authorities to consider this fact
in the light of various factors. Consequently, the
28
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners cannot be accepted.
Similarly, the contention that the question
papers were not set in accordance with the
guidelines framed by NCTE cannot be accepted.
This is the task of the examining body, which has
framed the questions in accordance with the
guidelines. These guidelines may have a statutory
flavour but at the same time it remains only a
guideline and the guideline gives a broad picture of
the kind of questions that can be asked in the
examination paper. It does not mean that every
aspect of the guidelines is to be reflected in a
question in the examination paper.
Quite apart from the aforesaid, the Court finds
that the petitioners having participated in the
examination process cannot turn around and
question the percentage of the qualifying marks nor
it can question the process of preparation of the
examination paper not it can contend that the
question paper was not in accordance with the
guidelines framed by NCTE. This question is no
longer
res integra
and has been settled in a catena
of cases by the Supreme Court, namely,
Madan Lal
v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486], Marripati
Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
[(2007) 11 SCC 522], Dhananjay Malik v. State
of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171], Amlan Jyoti
Borooah v. State of Assam [(2009) 3 SCC 227]
29
and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5
SCC 515].
In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. [(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 576]
, the
Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid decisions
and held that having taken part in the process of
selection knowing fully well that certain marks
have been earmarked for viva voce test, the
petitioner was not entitled to challenge the criteria
or process of selection. The Supreme Court held
that the conduct of the petitioners clearly
disentitled them from questioning the selection.
The Supreme Court in para-16 held:
“16. We also agree with the High Court that
after having taken part in the process of selection
knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have
been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is
not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of
selection. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had
appeared in the merit list, he would not have even
dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner
invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India only after he found
that his name does not figure in the merit list
prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the
petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the
selection and the High Court did not commit any
error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.”
30
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does
not find any merit in the writ petitions and the
same are dismissed without any order on cost.
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)
17
th
May, 2012
Rajni


Thursday, April 24, 2014

Uttrakhand TET, UTET :उलझ न जाए गुरुजी बनने का सपना शिक्षकों के 1880 पदों की भर्ती पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक

Uttrakhand TET, UTET :उलझ न जाए गुरुजी बनने का सपना
शिक्षकों के 1880 पदों की भर्ती पर हाईकोर्ट ने लगाई रोक




राज्य सरकार तलब
•न्यायालय ने सरकार से मांगा है जवाब
•विरोध में कुल 29 याचिकाएं हैं दाखिल
•न्यायालय में तीन हफ्ते में दाखिल करना है जवाब
भर्ती प्रक्रिया अभी लटकी तो फिर पंचायत चुनाव की आचार संहिता लग जाएगी। प्रक्रिया पर लगातार हाईकोर्ट में अलग-अलग याचिकाएं दायर की जा रही हैं। ऐसे में हजाराें युवाओं का सपना अधूरा रह सकता है।
-अमित कश्यप, प्रदेस सचिव, बीएड टीईटी प्रशिक्षित महासंघ 



देहरादून। प्रदेश के प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों के 1880 पदों पर गुरुजी बनने का हजारों युवाओं का कानूनी दांव पेच में उलझ सकता है। हाईकोर्ट ने भर्ती प्रक्रिया पर रोक लगाकर प्रदेश सरकार से तीन सप्ताह में जवाब मांगा है।


दिक्कत यह है कि प्रक्रिया के विरोध में हाईकोर्ट में एक-दो नहीं, 29 याचिकाएं दायर की गई हैं। ऐसे में इन सबके निस्तारण में लंबा समय लगना तय है।
प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती शुरू से ही विवादों में रही है। नियमानुसार टीईटी में पास होने के लिए पिछड़ा वर्ग के अभ्यर्थी के न्यूनतम अंक 75 जबकि सामान्य के 90 होने चाहिए। प्रदेश सरकार ने उत्तरकाशी के चिन्यालीसौड़, डुंडा और भटवाड़ी ब्लाक को इसी वर्ष पिछड़ा क्षेत्र घोषित किया है। ऐसे में यहां के सामान्य अभ्यर्थी भी 75 अंकों पर पास मानने की मांग कर रहे हैं।
दूसरी ओर, बैकलॉग के पदों पर भी विवाद है।
कुछ युवाओं ने भर्ती में बैकलॉग को शामिल करने की मांग की है। लेकिन दूसरी ओर, युवाओं का कहना है कि अगर बैकलॉग के पद अलग से जोड़े जाएं तो दिक्कत नहीं है। लेकिन अगर सामान्य पदों में ही कटौती कर बैकलॉग शामिल किया गया तो वे भी कोर्ट चले जाएंगे। कुल मिलाकर पूरी प्रक्रिया पर अभी लंबा कानूनी झगड़ा जारी रहने की आशंका है।

News Source / Sabhaar : अमर उजाला (24.04.2014)

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Appeal : Achhe Ummedvaron Ko Chune aur VOTE ka Sadupyog Karen

Appeal : Achhe Ummedvaron Ko Chune aur VOTE ka Sadupyog Karen


Desh Kee Rajneeti Mein Achhe Ummedvaaron Ka Saath den,
Nimn Qualities Dekhen -
1. Honest ho
2. Sampatti , Jameen Jaydaad Kam Ho
3. Educational Qualification Achhee Ho
4. Desh ke Prati Apnee Jimmedaree Samjhe, Samaj Ke Liye Achhe Kaam Karta Ho
5. Dharm aur Jati Se Oopar Uth kar Ho
6. Jan Lok Pal aur RTI ka Hiteshee Ho

7. Kisee Bhee Tarh Kee Apradhik Gatividhee Mein Shamil Na Hua Ho

Friday, April 11, 2014

SC seeks response of Centre, states on violation of Right to Education Act

SC seeks response of Centre, states on violation of Right to Education Act



RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT / TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST INDIA / NCTE GUIDELINES


Petition asked the states and the UTs to recruit and train one lakh additional professionally trained teachers every month.
   

The PIL, filed by the National Coalition for Education — a network of organisations fighting for the RTE — said at least 1.5 lakh schools and 12 lakh trained teachers were required to fulfill the goals envisaged under the RTE.

 It sought a direction that "the states and UTs upgrade all deficient schools with appropriate physical infrastructure so as to be in compliance with the RTE Act within six months.

"The states and UTs regularise and make permanent all contract and para-teachers in the country," it said. The petition also said the states and UTs should disclose the number of students admitted under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota in the state in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 






 
A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam issued notice and sought their response after summer vacation on a plea filed by an organisation, National Coalition for Education.
  
The plea said lack of resources and failure to implement provisions of the RTE Act has resulted in a significant decline in education performance.
  
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves sought a direction to all the states to complete the required neighbourhood mapping within six months and new schools be constructed six months after completion of the process.
  
The petition asked the states and UTs to recruit and train one lakh additional professionally trained teachers to end the shortage of educators within a year.
  
It sought a direction that "the states and UTs upgrade all deficient schools with appropriate physical infrastructure so as to be in compliance with the RTE Act within six months.
  
"The states and UTs regularise and make permanent all contract and para-teachers in the country," it said.
  
The petition also said the states and UTs should disclose the number of students admitted under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota in the state in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
  
"Based on the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the Right to Education is being violated across the country. These violations have persisted for years and remain today in face of the RTE Act's requirement that they be remedied within three years of it coming into force.
  
"And more troubling, they persist despite widespread awareness of their existence by various responsible governments and authorities and in the face of previous orders from this court on October 3, 2012 to remedy them," it said

RTE : शिक्षकों की कमी पर केंद्र व राज्यों को नोटिस

RTE : शिक्षकों की कमी पर केंद्र व राज्यों को नोटिस

Tags :
UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News/  RTE  / RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT


याचिकाकर्ता ने लगाया है शिक्षा का अधिकार कानून के उल्लंघन का आरोप 

नई दिल्ली (ब्यूरो)। देशभर के स्कूलों में शिक्षकों और संसाधनों की कमी के चलते शिक्षा के अधिकार कानून (आरटीई) के उल्लंघन के आरोप पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने शुक्रवार को केंद्र व सभी राज्य सरकारों से जवाब तलब किया। सर्वोच्च अदालत में दायर याचिका में इस कानून पर सही तरीके से अमल कराने के लिए सरकारों को निर्देश जारी करने की मांग की गई है।
चीफ जस्टिस पी. सदाशिवम की अध्यक्षता वाली पीठ ने केंद्र, राज्य व केंद्र शासित प्रदेशों को नोटिस जारी कर ग्रीष्मावकाश के बाद जवाब दाखिल करने को कहा है। याचिका नेशनल कोलीशन फॉर एजुकेशन संगठन ने दायर की है। याचिका में कहा गया है कि संसाधनों की कमी और आरटीई के प्रावधानों को लागू करने में विफलता के कारण शिक्षा के क्षेत्र में काफी गिरावट आई है। पीठ के समक्ष वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता कोलिन गोंसाविस ने सभी राज्यों को छह महीने के भीतर दूर-दराज के इलाकों का अध्ययन करने का निर्देश जारी करने का आग्रह किया। साथ ही कहा कि यह प्रक्रि या पूरी होने के बाद छह महीने के लिए नये स्कूलों का निर्माण होना चाहिए।


News Source / Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (12.04.2014)