Join UTET-Uttrakhand Teacher Eligibility Test

Showing posts with label nainital highcourt. Show all posts

Friday, July 24, 2015

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Nainital High Court Correct Order - नियुक्ति अस्थायी होगी तथा यह स्पेशल अपील के निर्णय के अधीन -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Nainital High Court Correct Order - नियुक्ति अस्थायी होगी तथा यह स्पेशल अपील के निर्णय के अधीन -

हाईकोर्ट के फैसले से शिक्षा मित्रों को राहत - नियुक्ति अस्थायी होगी

relief for shiksha mitra.
नैनीताल हाईकोर्ट ने शिक्षा मित्रों को टीईटी में छूट प्रदान करने संबंधी शासनदेश के मामले में दायर स्पेशल अपील पर सुनवाई के बाद सरकार को आदेश दिया है कि शिक्षा मित्रों की यदि नियमित नियुक्ति की जाती है तो सरकार को नियुक्ति पत्र पर स्पष्ट उल्लेख करना होगा कि यह नियुक्ति अस्थायी होगी तथा यह स्पेशल अपील के निर्णय के अधीन होगी।

शिक्षा मित्रों को टीईटी से दी गई थी छूट
मामले की अगली सुनवाई 13 मार्च 2015 को होगी। मुख्य न्यायाधीश केएम जोसेफ एवं न्यायमूर्ति वीके बिष्ट की खंडपीठ के समक्ष मामले की सुनवाई हुई। मामले के अनुसार पूर्व में प्रवीण कुमार और अन्य ने हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दायर कर कहा था कि सरकार की ओर से शासनादेश जारी किया गया है जिसके तहत शिक्षा मित्रों को टीईटी से छूट प्रदान की गई थी।

इस शासनादेश को याचियों ने ने चुनौती दी थी। एकलपीठ ने सुनवाई के बाद शिक्षा मित्रों को टीईटी से छूट प्रदान करने के शासनादेश को निरस्त कर दिया था। एकलपीठ के इस आदेश को सरकार और अन्य शिक्षा मित्रों की ओर से स्पेशल अपील दायर कर चुनौती दी गई थी।

पक्षों को सुनवाई के बाद हाईकोर्ट की खंडपीठ ने सरकार को आदेश दिया है कि शिक्षा मित्रों को यदि नियमित नियुक्ति दी जाती है तो सरकार को नियुक्ति पत्र में स्पष्ट उल्लेख करना होगा कि उक्त नियुक्ति अस्थायी होगी तथा यह नियुक्ति स्पेशल अपील के निर्णय के अधीन होगी।
News source: ब्‍यूरो / अमर उजाला, नैनीताल Updated @ 9:12 AM IST

Kya Tha Single Bench Ka Decision :-
बड़ी खबर : शिक्षा मित्रों को टी ई टी से छूट नहीं

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

UTET : BTC Shikshamitra TET Case in Court of Sudhanshu Dhuliya, Nainital High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1507 of 2012

Mahesh Chandra & others              ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others   …Respondents

Present : Mr. Devesh Upreti, Counsel, for the petitioners.

   Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of

Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. Mr. Devesh Upreti, Counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Notices may go to all private respondents. Steps to be taken within two weeks.

4. Petitioners before this Court have challenged the action of the respondents by which they have been made ineligible for appointment as teacher in primary school in government school in Uttarakhand, and pertains to district Champawat.

5. Consequent to Right to Education (elementary education) becoming a Fundamental Right and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 being enacted subsequently, it was given to a central body known as National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) to frame guidelines for eligibility and appointment of elementary school teachers all over the country. These guidelines are contained in a notification issued by NCTE on 23.8.2010, inter alia, one of the principal requirements for a person to be appointed as a teacher in elementary school is that he/she must qualify a test known as Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “TET”). NCTE while giving these guidelines had exempted only those categories of teachers from appearing in the examination known as TET where the process of appointment had started prior to the notification i.e. prior to 23.8.2010. There was no further relaxation given by the NCTE or Government of India. Apart from having a qualification of TET, another mandatory qualification is that a candidate must have a teacher training certificate which in the State of Uttarakhand is known as Basic Teaching Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “BTC”).

6. The State of Uttarakhand has granted exemption to one set of BTC trained teachers on the grounds that the process for imparting training to such teachers started way back in the year 2005-06 and the training itself started from 26.4.2010 which is prior to the notification dated 23.8.2010. Hence, according to the Director, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand these set of teachers has been exempted to appear in TET examination, on grounds that process for appointment had started prior to 23.8.2010. Petitioners before this Court are also BTC trained teachers but they are the ones who had obtained this training not by way of a competition but by virtue of the fact that they have been working as “Shiksha Mitra” for a considerable period of time and Government had trained the senior most of such “Shiksha Mitra” and they are now BTC qualified. They have already undergone training between the same period, as the regular BTC candidate has obtained training, but whereas the regular BTC candidate has been exempted from TET, the petitioners have not been given this exemption and therefore without this exemption they are not qualified to be appointed as primary school teacher in the State of Uttarakhand,
unless they also qualify TET. Petitioners contend that since such an exemption has already been given to other set of BTC trained persons, it is liable to be given to them as well. The petitioners claim that the action of the State is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the action of the respondents amounts to a hostile discrimination.

7. Counsels appearing for the petitioners have taken these grounds relying on various correspondences between the State Authorities like letters and orders annexed as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition (WPSS No. 1521 of 2012) in which the main reason for granting exemption to regular BTC trained teachers is that they had gained appointment on 26th April, 2010 i.e. prior to the notification dated 23.8.2010 of NCTE. The petitioners contend that they are also on similar footing as they too had gained BTC courses in April, 2010. Therefore they cannot be discriminated merely because they were earlier “Shiksha Mitra”. Under the notification dated 23.8.2010 of NCTE, a candidate had to qualify an examination known as TET and this was an essential qualification before he could become a teacher. The only exemption contained in clause 5 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 reads as under:-

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

4

8. Prima facie, the view of this Court is that merely because the process of entrance in BTC had started prior to 23.8.2010 it would not mean that the process of appointment of teachers had started as well, but in any case if on this ground exemption has been granted to one set of BTC trained teachers, similar exemption ought to have been granted to the petitioners as well.

9. Earlier today in a bunch of writ petitions pertaining to BTC qualified persons who wish to appear as a candidate for appointment as a primary school teacher in the State of Uttarakhand following orders were passed:

“Therefore in view of the above, this Court issues ad interim mandamus to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners and all other similarly situated persons for the ongoing process of recruitment of primary school teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. It is made clear that since the mater will be heard finally, the respondents may not issue appointment letters or publish final selection list (unless they have already done so), which shall be done on the final determination of this writ petition, or any order passed therein. It is further made clear that it would be proper if the Director, School Education gives a wide publicity to this fact and invites applications from such BTC trained teachers as the present petitioners who were earlier “Shiksha Mitra”.”

10. The present petitioners are similarly situated as the ones in whose favour aforesaid orders have been passed. The grievance of the present petitioners though relates to appointment of primary school teacher in district Champawat. A statement has come in this case regarding appointment of primary school teacher from the State Counsel that pursuant to the advertisement appointments of primary school teacher have already been made in district Champawat. In case this is so in the present case, it shall not presently affect appointment of such teachers by way of interim order passed in the present or any other writ petitions but their appointments shall be subject to the final determination of the writ petition.

11. Counter affidavit to be filed within three weeks.

12. List this matter on 20.11.2012 in the daily cause list.



(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

                              17.10.2012

Kuldeep

Uttrakhand TET | UTET / टीईटी - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Recruitment News

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET

UTET : TET is Mandatory or Not For Shiksha Mitra in Uttrakhand, Nainital Highcourt Case- Order on

Important Parts : -
a person is required to have passed Teachers Eligibility Test, no one, either in his capacity as Shiksha Acharya and/or in his capacity as Shiksha Mitra, can enter a Primary School as a teacher.

even today, Shiksha Mitras are teaching in Primary Schools. Their nomenclatures have not been altered and, even now, Shiksha Acharyas are being converted to Shiksha Mitras in terms of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010

Stay on Orders

3 weeks time granted. It means it is not final order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 265 of 2013

State of Uttarakhand and others …………..         Appellants

Versus

Madan Singh and others   .………….        Respondents



{{{

{

Special Appeal No. 206 of 2013

State of Uttarakhand and others …………..         Appellants

Versus

Dhani Ram and another   .………….        Respondents

Special Appeal No. 266 of 2013

State of Uttarakhand and others …………..         Appellants

Versus

Mahesh Chandra and others ………….        Respondents

AND

Special Appeal No. 355 of 2013

State of Uttarakhand and others …………..         Appellants

Versus

Amar Singh     .………….        Respondent

Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/appellants.

   Mr. K.N. Joshi alongwith Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the    respondents.

Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

   The judgments under appeals deal with similar issues. Accordingly, all the appeals are considered together. Each of them are admitted and all of them should be listed together for final hearing. Liberty is granted to the parties to apply for fixation of an early date of hearing.

In the State, there was a concept of Shiksha Acharya and Shiksha Mitra. Shiksha Acharyas and Shiksha Mitras were imparting education in Primary Schools. For a Shiksha Acharya, requirement was less than a Shiksha Mitra. For a Shiksha Mitra, it was a requirement that he should be a graduate. For Shiksha Acharya, the same was not the requirement. Many Shiksha Acharyas, while were Shiksha Mitras, were already graduates. The Government introduced BTC training. BTC training would entail a better scale of pay. Shiksha Mitras were enticed to be trained for the purpose of obtaining better pay scale. Steps were taken to have all Shiksha Mitras trained. The same succeeded and, in fact, all Shiksha Mitras were imparted BTC training. This facility was not available to Shiksha Acharyas. On 19th November, 2010, the Government decided that whoever was working as Shiksha Acharya and whoever was a graduate as on 19th November 2010 shall be treated as Shiksha Mitra and simultaneously shall be sent for obtaining BTC training. Some of the writ petitioners, respondents in these appeals, filed writ petitions before making of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010 and some filed writ petitions subsequent thereto. In the writ petitions, which were filed before 19th November, 2010, writ petitioners/respondents claimed benefits of some other Government Orders. In the writ petitions, which were filed after 19th November, 2010, writ petitioners sought benefit of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010. Many other similar writ petitions were filed, whereby and under, direction was given for giving benefits of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010. Some of those orders reached the Division Bench and the Division Bench also reaffirmed that the benefit of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010 be reached to those who are covered by the said Government Order. By the judgments under appeals, the learned single Judge has accorded benefit of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010 to the writ petitioners/respondents. These orders were passed on 7th November, 2012 and subsequent thereto. In these appeals, it is being contended that, having regard to the statutory mandate to the effect that a person is required to have passed Teachers Eligibility Test, no one, either in his capacity as Shiksha Acharya and/or in his capacity as Shiksha Mitra, can enter a Primary School as a teacher. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents is contending that, even today, Shiksha Mitras are teaching in Primary Schools. Their nomenclatures have not been altered and, even now, Shiksha Acharyas are being converted to Shiksha Mitras in terms of the Government Order dated 19th November, 2010. These aspects of the matter have not been dealt with by the judgments and orders under appeals. We permit the parties to bring on record further pleadings within three weeks to support their aforementioned respective contentions. While doing so, we stay the operation of the orders.



                 ( Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)                (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)

                           03.12.2013                                          03.12.2013

P. Singh

Uttrakhand TET | UTET / टीईटी - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Recruitment News

UTET : Nainital HC Order - TET Case on 25th March 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No.420 (S/S) of 2014

Poornima Panwar         ……….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others    ………Respondents

with

Writ Petition No.421 (S/S) of 2014

Praveen Kumar          ……….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others    ………Respondents

with

Writ Petition No.422 (S/S) of 2014

Ramesh Chandra Bhatt        ……….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others    ………Respondents

                with

Writ Petition No.423 (S/S) of 2014

Rajesh Dutt          ……….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others    ………Respondents

                      with

Writ Petition No.290 (S/S) of 2014

Km. Babita           ……….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others    ………Respondents

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate with Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, present for the petitioners in all the writ petitions.

2. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.

3. Mr. Manoj Shah, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 3/Uttarakhand School Education Board, Ram Nagar.

2

4. Petitioners in all the writ petitions belong to Other Backward Classes community (from herein after referred to as “OBC”), known as “Ranwalta”. They claim appointment as an OBC candidate on the post of Primary School Teacher in a Government School. One of the essential conditions for the said post is that one should have passed Uttarakhand Teachers Eligibility Test Examination (from herein after referred to as the “TET”). When the petitioners gave this examination in the year 2013, petitioners did not have OBC Certificate with them. In the said examination, petitioners scored more than 50% marks. The qualifying marks for an OBC candidate in the said examination was 50% and for a General candidate it was 60%. Since the petitioners have appeared in the TET examination as a General candidate, as they were not having OBC Certificate at that particular point of time, they have been declared unsuccessful in Uttarakhand TET-I examination.

5. Contention of the learned State Counsel is that petitioners have applied for the post of Primary School Teacher as an OBC candidate which is not being considered for the reason that they have not passed the Uttarakhand TET Examination with 60% marks in the said examination.

6. This objections of the respondents appear to be unreasonable. Since the petitioners belong to an OBC category, their qualifying cut of marks should not have been judged as 60% as is being judged but it should have been judged as 50%, for an OBC category candidate. This is a prima facie opinion of this Court.

3

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in a similar writ petition filed by him i.e. Writ Petition No. 315 (S/S) of 2014, this Court has already granted an interim order.

8. In view thereof, as an interim measure, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners as an OBC Category candidate for the post of Primary School Teacher, if they are otherwise qualified, treating them to be TET qualified, but it shall be subject to the final determination of the writ petitions, as it shall only be provisional. Petitioners shall, however, not be posted as a teacher till finalization of these writ petitions.

9. Respondents shall file their counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Three weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.

10. List these writ petitions on 15

th

May, 2014 in daily cause list along with Writ Petition No. 315 (S/S) of 2014.

11. Interim Relief Applications in all these writ petitions stand disposed of.

                  (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

                              25.03.2014

ML

Uttrakhand TET | UTET / टीईटी - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Recruitment News

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

UTET : बीटीसी धारकों को छूट नहीं

नैनीताल : हाई कोर्ट ने शिक्षा मित्रों की याचिका पर महत्वपूर्ण फैसला सुनाते हुए बीटीसी धारक शिक्षकों को सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती में शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा से छूट देने संबंधी शासनादेश को संविधान के खिलाफ करार दिया है। कोर्ट के आदेश के बाद सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती में सभी अभ्यर्थियों को टीईटी पास करना जरूरी हो गया है। यदि बीटीसी धारक टीईटी में पास नहीं हुए तो उन्हें नौकरी से हाथ धोना पड़ेगा। सरकार ने पिछले साल 14 जून और इस साल 29 अगस्त को अलग-अलग शासनादेश जारी कर बीटीसी धारक अभ्यर्थियों को टीईटी परीक्षा में शिथिलता प्रदान की थी। बीटीसी धारक शिक्षा मित्र भुवन जोशी व अन्य ने हाई कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल कर कहा था कि वह बीटीसी धारक शिक्षा मित्र के पद पर कार्यरत हैं। इसलिए उन्हें भी नियमित बीटीसी धारकों की तर्ज पर शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा से छूट प्रदान की जाए। याचिकाओं में यह भी कहा गया था कि उन्हें पढ़ाने का विशेष अनुभव हासिल है। मामले की सुनवाई के दौरान कोर्ट ने माना कि केंद्र सरकार ने शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम के अंतर्गत उत्कृष्ट शिक्षक तैयार करने के लिए टीईटी परीक्षा अनिवार्य की है। केंद्र की संस्था एनसीटीई ने अधिसूचना जारी कर स्पष्ट कर दिया था कि राज्य सरकारें बिना संस्था की अनुमति के इस मामले में कोई शासनादेश जारी नहीं कर सकती हैं। कोर्ट ने शिक्षा मित्रों को टीईटी में छूट प्रदान करने से इन्कार करते हुए बीटीसी धारकों के लिए भी टीईटी पास करना अनिवार्य कर दिया। कोर्ट ने सरकार से तीन माह के भीतर बगैर टीईटी पास नियुक्त बीटीसी धारकों के लिए टीईटी परीक्षा की आयोजित करने के आदेश पारित किए। यदि वह सफल हुए तो नियुक्ति दी जाएगी, अन्यथा उन्हें नौकरी से हाथ धोना पड़ेगा। मामले की सुनवाई न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति सुधांशु धुलिया की एकल पीठ में हुई।

News Source : http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/epaper/article/index.php?choice=show_article&location=43&Ep_relation=1&Ep_edition=2012-12-14&articleid=111757162572616280 / Jagran