/* remove this */
Showing posts with label UP Teacher Promotion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UP Teacher Promotion. Show all posts

Saturday, March 23, 2024

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

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)



 



Read more...

Saturday, September 22, 2018

UPTET News - प्राइमरी से जूनियर शिक्षक प्रमोशन में टेट की अनिवार्यता को लेकर सुनवाई फिर नये सिरे से होगी, एक दूसरी डिवीज़न बेंच ने कहा कि टेट मेंडेटरी को लेकर सिंगल बेंच व डिवीज़न बेंच ने सुनवाई ठीक से नहीं की -

UPTET   News - 
प्राइमरी से जूनियर शिक्षक प्रमोशन  में 
टेट की अनिवार्यता को लेकर सुनवाई फिर नये सिरे से होगी, एक दूसरी डिवीज़न बेंच ने कहा कि टेट मेंडेटरी को लेकर सिंगल बेंच व डिवीज़न बेंच ने सुनवाई ठीक से नहीं की 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 645 of 2018 

Appellant :- Bhisham Pal Singh And 4 Others 
Respondent :- Deepak Sharma And 21 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar,Dhananjay Awasthi,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shantanu Khare,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. 
This appeal questions the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 15th May, 2018 on several grounds, more particularly on the ground that the learned Single Judge while proceeding to consider the legal aspects has omitted to consider the clause specifying exemption in possession of minimum qualification for promotion in the notification dated 23th August 2010 as referred to in the notification dated 12th November, 2014 which has been made the basis of the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the learned single judge has also omitted to consider paragraphs 66 to 70 of the full Bench Judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others 2015 (8) ADJ 338 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 
The contention therefore in short is that the learned Single Judge should have taken into consideration the aforesaid statutory provision and the law before arriving at the conclusion and issuing a mandamus. 
The judgment relied on has been placed before us. On the other hand, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for NCTE has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a case of Subedar Yadav and 54 others in writ Petition No.16523 of 2018 that has been upheld by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No.737 of 2018 decided on 04.09.2018. 
Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-petitioners contends that as a matter of fact, the eligibility and minimum qualifications in the case of promotions which is presently involved would equally apply with the same force keeping in view the notifications that have been referred to by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the continuance of the appellants by itself will not condone or give them any subsidy in the possession of minimum qualifications which now stands standardised and prescribed under the notifications of the NCTE as indicated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. He therefore contends that there is no error much less a legal error and consequently if the appellants do not posses the said minimum eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Head Master, they cannot as a matter of right contend that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge suffer from infirmity. 
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground of total non-consideration of the exemptions referred to for promotion regarding possession of minimum qualification under the notification dated 23rd August 2010 which finds reference in the notification dated 12th November, 2014 as well as the decision in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav. We also find that neither before the learned Single Judge nor before the Bench which affirmed the judgment in the case of Subedar Yadav (supra), the aforesaid contentions were examined nor any reference was made to paragraphs 66 to 70 of the full Bench judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others 2015 (8) ADJ 338 as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P and another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others 2017 (3) ESC 570. 
We are of the opinion that the aforesaid provisions and the decision referred to above ought to have taken notice of that was imperative before arriving at the conclusion that the appellants or the candidates similarly situate would not be entitled to any of the exceptions as provided for in the notification dated 12.11.2014 read with the notification dated 23.08.2010. Consequently, on this short ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 40 
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018 
In 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 645 of 2018 

Appellant :- Bhisham Pal Singh And 4 Others 
Respondent :- Deepak Sharma And 21 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar,Dhananjay Awasthi,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shantanu Khare,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. 
This application to condone the delay has been filed praying that the sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit in support of the application which may be considered and the delay be condoned. 
Having considered the same, we are satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned as sufficient cause has been shown. 
The application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated as within time and shall be given a regular number by he office. 
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 
saqlain 
Court No. - 40 
Civil Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No.2 of 2018 
In 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 645 of 2018 

Appellant :- Bhisham Pal Singh And 4 Others 
Respondent :- Deepak Sharma And 21 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar,Dhananjay Awasthi,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shantanu Khare,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. 
Heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant. 
This application for leave to appeal has been filed contending that all the appellants are directly affected on account of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as their right of promotion has been affected in view of the mandamus issued by this Court under the impugned judgment date 15th May, 2018. 
Having heard learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Neha Rai Choudhary, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Awadesh Kumar, Shyam Krishan Gupta and Statish Chandra Yadav for District Inspector of Schools concerned, and the learned standing counsel for the State, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment directly impinges upon the rights of promotion of the appellants and therefore, they have a right to prefer this appeal. 
Consequently, leave to appeal is granted. Application allowed. 
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 
saqlain 
Court No. - 40 


We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2018 with a request to the learned Single Judge to proceed to hear and dispose of the matter at the earliest keeping in view of the fact that the promotions are long over due in the controversy presently involved. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 
The appellants are permitted to get themselves impleaded in the writ petition No.11287 of 2018 which shall stand restored to its original number and shall be heard on merits. 
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi the learned counsel the for NCTE as well as the learned standing counsel are both directed to file their counter affidavits in the said writ petition within two weeks and one week for rejoinder. The matter shall be heard thereafter. 
Appeal allowed. 
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 
saqlain







HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 40 
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018 
In 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 645 of 2018 

Appellant :- Bhisham Pal Singh And 4 Others 
Respondent :- Deepak Sharma And 21 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar,Dhananjay Awasthi,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shantanu Khare,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. 
This application to condone the delay has been filed praying that the sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit in support of the application which may be considered and the delay be condoned. 
Having considered the same, we are satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned as sufficient cause has been shown. 
The application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated as within time and shall be given a regular number by he office. 
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 
saqlain 
Court No. - 40 
Civil Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No.2 of 2018 
In 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 645 of 2018 

Appellant :- Bhisham Pal Singh And 4 Others 
Respondent :- Deepak Sharma And 21 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar,Dhananjay Awasthi,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shantanu Khare,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. 
Heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant. 
This application for leave to appeal has been filed contending that all the appellants are directly affected on account of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as their right of promotion has been affected in view of the mandamus issued by this Court under the impugned judgment date 15th May, 2018. 
Having heard learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Neha Rai Choudhary, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Awadesh Kumar, Shyam Krishan Gupta and Statish Chandra Yadav for District Inspector of Schools concerned, and the learned standing counsel for the State, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment directly impinges upon the rights of promotion of the appellants and therefore, they have a right to prefer this appeal. 
Consequently, leave to appeal is granted. Application allowed. 
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 
saqlain 
Court No. - 40 





 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
 
Read more...

UPTET News -हाईकोर्ट की डबल बेंच ने प्रमोशन में प्राइमरी से जूनियर शिक्षक के प्रमोशन में जूनियर टेट जरूरी माना था, सूबेदार यादव की याचिका खारिज हुई, हालांकि एक नया निर्णय चर्चा में हैं, अगली पोस्ट में लिखेंगे

UPTET  News -हाईकोर्ट की डबल बेंच ने  प्रमोशन में प्राइमरी से जूनियर शिक्षक के प्रमोशन में जूनियर टेट जरूरी माना था, सूबेदार यादव की याचिका खारिज हुई, हालांकि एक नया निर्णय चर्चा में हैं, अगली पोस्ट में लिखेंगे 




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 34 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 737 of 2018 

Appellant :- Subedar Yadav And 4 Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arpan Srivastava 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Ram Prakash Shukla 

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J. 
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arpan Srivastava, learned counsel for appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi for respondents no. 4 and 5 and perused the record. 
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing appellants' writ petition no. 16523 of 2018 by which order impugned therein dated 17.05.2018 was sought to be quashed. 
3. Dispute in this appeal is, whether appellants are required to pass Teachers' Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to "TET") for being considered for promotion from Primary to Junior High School under the Regulations. 
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that requirement of passing TET is confined to direct recruitment and not for the purpose of promotion. 
5. We are of the view that requirement of passing TET is necessary for selection, promotion and for any other mode of appointment and it is not confined only to the selection from open recruitment. 
6. We, therefore, find no reason to restrain respondents from taking aforesaid test. The purpose of having a person passed TET is only to judge one's efficiency and performance of imparting education Primary School. In case teachers are not efficient to impart primary education to its students, the very purpose of providing basic standard education would be defeated. 
7. We, therefore, find no fault in the judgment of learned Single Judge, assailed in this appeal. 
8. Dismissed. 
Order Date :- 4.9.2018 
Sachdeva



 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
 
Read more...

Sunday, August 26, 2018

UPTET News -प्रमोशन के लिए प्राइमरी/अपर प्राइमरी टेट क़वालीफिकेशन /NCTE द्वारा समय समय पर जारी क़वालीफिकेशन होना जरूरी है, 12 नवंबर 2014 को जारी भारत सरकार गजट नोटिफिकेशन के आधार पर कोर्ट ने यह फैसला दिया है -

UPTET   News -प्रमोशन के लिए प्राइमरी/अपर प्राइमरी टेट क़वालीफिकेशन /NCTE द्वारा समय समय पर जारी क़वालीफिकेशन होना जरूरी है, 12 नवंबर 2014 को जारी भारत सरकार गजट नोटिफिकेशन के आधार पर कोर्ट ने यह फैसला दिया है 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 58 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11287 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Deepak Sharma And 3 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 16 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Khare 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shyam Krishna Gupta 

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. 
This petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: 
"i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to limit consideration of candidates for promotion as Headmaster of Junior Basic School and Assistant Teacher / Headmaster of Senior Basic School to candidates possessing TET (Primary level) / TET (Upper primary level) alone in pursuance to promotional exercise underway in pursuance to circular of Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P., Allahabad dated 28.03.2018. 
ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to accord any consideration for promotion as Headmaster - Junior Basic School and Assistant Teacher / Head Master, Senior Basic School of candidates not possessing TET (Primary level) / TET (Upper primary level)." 
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon clause 4 of the notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (in short, 'NCTE'), which reads as under: 
"4. Qualification for Recruitment:- 
(a) The qualifications for recruitment of teachers in any recognized school imparting Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges imparting senior secondary education shall be as given in the First and Second Schedule(s) annexed to these Regulations. � 
(b) For promotion of teachers the relevant minimum qualifications as specified in the First and Second Schedule(s) are applicable for consideration from one level to the next level." 
Submission is that for the purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster / Headmistress as well as to the post of Assistant Teacher, the requirement of obtaining certificates of TET (Primary level) / TET (Upper primary level) would be mandatory.� It is contended that the respondents cannot enlarge the zone of consideration while considering the claim of promotion, even to those who do not possess the aforesaid qualification.� 
While entertaining this petition, the petitioners were permitted to implead NCTE as a party - respondent and its counsel was allowed time to obtain instructions in that regard.� Following orders were passed in the matter on 08.05.2018: 
"Petitioners contend that by virtue of regulation 4(b) of the NCTE Notification dated 12.11.2014, the qualification for promotion is also prescribed. Contention is that the qualification prescribed in the first and second schedule to the notification would equally apply for direct recruitment and promotion. It is also stated that section 23 of the Act of 2009 talks of appointment which includes promotion also. 
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE seeks short indulgence in order to obtain specific instruction from NCTE in that regard. 
Put up as fresh on 15.5.2018." 
Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel representing respondent - NCTE, on the basis of the instructions, states that the requirement contained in clause 4(b) of the NCTE notification dated 12.11.2014 would have to be met by a candidate before he is considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster / Headmistress of junior basic school and Assistant Teacher / Headmaster of senior basic school. � 
Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 3 as well as District Basic Education Officer, initially, tried to raise an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the present petitioners on the ground that they do not possess requisite eligibility for promotion to the posts in question and therefore, the writ petition, at their instance, be not entertained.� 
However, in view of the averments made in paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition as well as in view of proviso to rule 8(3), the objection of the respondents is not liable to be sustained; in as much as, in the absence of availability of requisite number of teachers with TET qualification, the respondents have the jurisdiction to relax the qualification prescribed under the relevant Rules.� Even otherwise, the petitioner no. 1 is shown to have completed three years working as Assistant Teacher.� So far as the petitioners' claim, on merit, is concerned, the respondents have not been able to dispute it, effectively.� No provision of law has been shown disputing the averments made on behalf of the petitioners.� 
In such view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the clause 4(b) of the NCTE notification dated 12.11.2014 and to restrict the zone of consideration for promotion to Teachers / Headmaster / Headmistress who possess requisite TET qualification in terms of the clause 4 of the NCTE notification dated 12.11.2014.� It would further be appropriate to observe that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2013 (6) ADJ 310), it is the qualification, contained in the NCTE notification, which would be relevant and would have to be scrupulously followed and the respondents cannot bank upon the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 alone to consider the claim of promotion. 
Order Date :- 15.5.2018 
Amit Mishra



 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
 
Read more...

Saturday, August 18, 2018

UPTET News -TET 2 की वजह से प्रमोशन पर रोक हटाने के लिए याचिका खारिज, 15 मई के निर्णय के तहत स्टे जारी

UPTET  News -TET 2 की वजह से प्रमोशन पर रोक हटाने के लिए याचिका खारिज, 15 मई के निर्णय के तहत स्टे जारी 

याचियों का कहना था कि पर्याप्त संख्या में टेट पास उम्मीदवार न होने पर सरकार को टेट योग्यता में छूट देने का अधिकार है, कोर्ट ने उनके तर्क को खारिज करते हुए कड़ाई से फुलबेंच के निर्णय शिव कुमार - मिनिमम टेट योग्यता NCTE का पालन करने को कहा,
साथ ही राज्य सरकार को कहा कि प्रमोशन में अकेले 1981 नियमावली का ही पालन न करें।




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 7 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16523 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Subedar Yadav And 54 Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpan Srivastava,Sri Anil Bhushan Sr. Advocate 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prakash Shukla 

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 
It appears that a process for promotion of teachers was undertaken by the Basic Education Department in which teachers who do not possess even T.E.T. certificates, were being considered. A Writ-A No.11287 of 2018 (Deepak Sharma and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 16 others) was filed which was disposed of by order dated 15.05.2018, as under: 
"This petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: 
"i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to limit consideration of candidates for promotion as Headmaster of Junior Basic School and Assistant Teacher / Headmaster of Senior Basic School to candidates possessing TET (Primary level) / TET (Upper primary level) alone in pursuance to promotional exercise underway in pursuance to circular of Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P., Allahabad dated 28.03.2018. 
ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to accord any consideration for promotion as Headmaster - Junior Basic School and Assistant Teacher / Head Master, Senior Basic School of candidates not possessing TET (Primary level) / TET (Upper primary level)." 
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon clause 4 of the notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (in short, 'NCTE'), which reads as under: 
"4. Qualification for Recruitment:- 
(a) The qualifications for recruitment of teachers in any recognized school imparting Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges imparting senior secondary education shall be as given in the First and Second Schedule(s) annexed to these Regulations.� 
(b) For promotion of teachers the relevant minimum qualifications as specified in the First and Second Schedule(s) are applicable for consideration from one level to the next level." 
Submission is that for the purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster / Headmistress as well as to the post of Assistant Teacher, the requirement of obtaining certificates of TET (Primary level) / TET (Upper primary level) would be mandatory. It is contended that the respondents cannot enlarge the zone of consideration while considering the claim of promotion, even to those who do not possess the aforesaid qualification. 
While entertaining this petition, the petitioners were permitted to implead NCTE as a party - respondent and its counsel was allowed time to obtain instructions in that regard. Following orders were passed in the matter on 08.05.2018: 
"Petitioners contend that by virtue of regulation 4(b) of the NCTE Notification dated 12.11.2014, the qualification for promotion is also prescribed. Contention is that the qualification prescribed in the first and second schedule to the notification would equally apply for direct recruitment and promotion. It is also stated that section 23 of the Act of 2009 talks of appointment which includes promotion also. 
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE seeks short indulgence in order to obtain specific instruction from NCTE in that regard. 
Put up as fresh on 15.5.2018." 
Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel representing respondent - NCTE, on the basis of the instructions, states that the requirement contained in clause 4(b) of the NCTE notification dated 12.11.2014 would have to be met by a candidate before he is considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster / Headmistress of junior basic school and Assistant Teacher / Headmaster of senior basic school.� 
Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 3 as well as District Basic Education Officer, initially, tried to raise an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the present petitioners on the ground that they do not possess requisite eligibility for promotion to the posts in question and therefore, the writ petition, at their instance, be not entertained. 
However, in view of the averments made in paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition as well as in view of proviso to rule 8(3), the objection of the respondents is not liable to be sustained; in as much as, in the absence of availability of requisite number of teachers with TET qualification, the respondents have the jurisdiction to relax the qualification prescribed under the relevant Rules. Even otherwise, the petitioner no. 1 is shown to have completed three years working as Assistant Teacher. So far as the petitioners' claim, on merit, is concerned, the respondents have not been able to dispute it, effectively. No provision of law has been shown disputing the averments made on behalf of the petitioners. 
In such view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the clause 4(b) of the NCTE notification dated 12.11.2014 and to restrict the zone of consideration for promotion to Teachers / Headmaster / Headmistress who possess requisite TET qualification in terms of the clause 4 of the NCTE notification dated 12.11.2014. It would further be appropriate to observe that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2013 (6) ADJ 310), it is the qualification, contained in the NCTE notification, which would be relevant and would have to be scrupulously followed and the respondents cannot bank upon the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 alone to consider the claim of promotion. " 
In terms of the afore-quoted order in the case of Deepak Sharma and 3 others (supra), the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 by which the promotion process has been stopped for the time being. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 
It appears that by the impugned order dated 17.05.2018, exercise being undertaken for promotion of Assistant Teachers has been postponed. It has not been cancelled as yet. 
Under the circumstances and in view of the order of this court dated 15.05.2018 in the case of Deepak Sharma and 3 others (supra), I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. 
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage. 
Order Date :- 1.8.2018 
NLY



 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
 
Read more...

Monday, April 9, 2018

UPTET News - जूनियर शिक्षको पर संकट, बगैर टेट पास कियेे पदोन्नति पाने का है मामला, जबकि टेट पास योग्य बेरोजगार सड़कों पर

UPTET  News - जूनियर शिक्षको पर संकट, बगैर टेट पास कियेे पदोन्नति
पाने का है मामला, जबकि 
टेट पास योग्य बेरोजगार सड़कों पर









 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
 
Read more...