/* remove this */
Showing posts with label UPTET 2013 Result. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UPTET 2013 Result. Show all posts

Saturday, September 20, 2014

UPTET 2013 Result News and 29334 Teacher Bhrtee Vivaad

UPTET 2013 Result News and 29334 Teacher Bhrtee Vivaad
29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment, UPTET, UPTET 2014 RESULT, UPTET 2013 Result,




UPTET 29334 Latest News In Hindi | Join UPTET
Uptet | Uptet news |  29334  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 


 29334  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News |  29334  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet |  29334  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi |  29334  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling |

29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment, Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP , 29334 junior teacher vacancy in up latest news, , UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS ,  SARKARI NAUKRI
|
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/

Read more...

Friday, May 23, 2014

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

UPTET 2013 : Result Correction writ in Allahabad High court

UPTET 2013 : Result Correction writ in Allahabad High court



UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News   
 Tags : uptet 2013, UPTET 2013 RESULT, NCTE, Urdu Teacher,



यू पी टी ई टी 2013 में एक लड़की के 88  मार्क्स आने पर , इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट में याचिका डाली गयी की
परीक्षा में प्रश्न त्रुटि पूर्ण थे ,
कोर्ट ने शिक्षा  विभाग को गलती सुधारने के लिए हलफनामा दाखिल करने को बोला है और हलफनामा दाखिल होने के १ महीने के भीतर आवश्यक कार्यवाही करने को बोला है





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47064 of 2013

Petitioner :- Ashmin Jahan
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner applied for the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 held on 27.06.2013 and appeared in the written examination, but she was declared unsuccessful, having secured only 88 marks as against requisite cut off mark i.e. 90 marks.
According to the petitioner, the answers of questions no. 49 & 78 of Series-D, as given in the key answer sheet prepared by the respondents, were not correct. The averments made in this regard, by the petitioner in paragraphs 18 to 24 of the writ petition, are quoted below:
"18. That question nos. 49 and 78 are questions pertaining to Part-II (Urdu Comprehension) (Prose and Poetry) and Part-III pertaining to Urdu Grammar. Both the said questions are their multiple choice answers are indicated in the question paper in Urdu language.
19. That for convenience the Hindi translation of question no. 49 is as follows:
" 49- ;g eflZ;k fdl 'kk;j dk gS
1- ehj vuhl]
2- fetZk nchj]
3- ehj tehj]
4- ehj [kyhQ-
20. That according to the petitioner the correct answer to Question No. 49 is option no. 1 but according to the key answer the correct answer to the said question has been treated to be Option No. 2. In support of the aforesaid the petitioner brings on record the extracts pertaining to Marsia Mir Anees as down loaded from the internet is annexed and marked as Annexure no. 7 to this writ petition.
21. That similarly the Hindi translation of Question No. 78 is extracted below:
78- cPpas yQ~t vklkuh ls lh[k ys mlds fy;s ge D;k bLrseky djrs gSa&
1- fdrkc nsuk]
2- fy[kkuk]
3- i    4- Iys dkMZ nsuk-
22. That according to the petitioner the correct answer to the said question is Option No. 4 and it is Option No. 4, which has been indicated by the petitioner. However, according to the respondents the correct answer to Question No. 78 is Option No. 3.
23. That by no stretch of imagination Option No. 3 can be treated to be the correct answer to Question No. 78 and in fact it is Option No. 4 which is the correct answer to the said question.
24. That in case the aforesaid three mistakes are rectified then marks secured by the petitioner would be 91 marks and the petitioner would be treated as having qualified the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test."

A perusal of the pleadings quoted above clearly indicates that as per the petitioner, in respect of Question No. 49, the correct answer was, the Option No. 1, but according to the key answer sheet, the answer was, Option No. 2. Similarly with regard to Question No. 78, as per the petitioner, the correct answer was, Option No. 4, whereas, as per the key answer sheet, the answer was, Option No. 3.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and in paragraph 14 thereof they have admitted the fact that the answers given in the key answer sheet as prepared by the subject expert, were not correct and the contentions of the petitioner in that regard are correct. The contents of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State are quoted herein-below:
14- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 24 esa of.kZr dFku ds laca/k esa izfroknh mRrjnkrk dk dguk gS fd mRrj izns'k f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk 2013 esa izkFkfed Lrj mnwZ Hkk"kk ds 11 iz'uksa ij vkifRr djrs gq, ,d vU; ;kfpdk la[;k 5836 (,e0,l0)@2013 [kq'khZn vkye [kWk o vU; cuke mRrj izns'k jkT; o vU; nkf[ky dh x;hA bl ;kfpdk ds nkf[ky gksus ds ckn iqu% fo"k;&fo'ks"kK ls tWkp djk;h x;h ftlesa fo"k;&fo'ks"kK }kjk ;g ekuk x;k gS fd iz'u la[;k lhjht Mh ds iz'u la[;k 49 o 78 dk okLrfod lgh mRrj dze'k% fodYi la[;k 01 o 04 gS] bl izdkj igys fo"k;&fo'ks"kK }kjk tks fjiksVZ nh x;h Fkh og xyr gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds voyksdukFkZ fo"k; fo'ks"kK dh uohu fjiksVZ dh Nk;kizfr bl izfr'kiFki= ds lkFk layXud lh0,0&4 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSA bl iz'u dk mRrj ;kph }kjk dze'k% fodYi la[;k 01 o 04 Hkjk gS] tks la'kksf/kr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj lgh gS] bl izdkj ;kph ds 90 vad gks tk;saxs] ;kph dk ;g dguk gS fd vxj xyrh dks lgh dj fn;k tk;s rks muds 91 vad gks tk;saxs lgh ugha gS
From the aforesaid averments, it is evident that another Writ Petition No. 5836 (M.S.) of 2013 was filed by another unsuccessful candidate raising objections regarding answers of 11 questions in respect of the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013. After filing of the said petition, the matter was re-examined and it was accepted by the subject expert that the answers as contained in the key answer sheet in respect of Questions No.49 & 78 of Series-D, were incorrect and correct answers were, Options No.1 & 4, respectively. The report of the earlier subject expert was incorrect. The subsequent report of the subject expert dated 28.10.2013, contained in Annexure C.A-4 to the counter affidavit, supports the averments made in para-14 of the counter affidavit.
In view of above, for these two questions, petitioner will get increase of 2 marks i.e. 1 mark for each question and thus, the aggregate of her marks would now come to 90, which is the cut off mark prescribed for the purpose of selection. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be declared successful.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to rectify the mistakes committed by them, in the light of averments made in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit and take all consequential actions as may be required by law, treating the petitioner as successful in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (Primary level for Urdu language), 2013, within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before them.
Order Date :- 16.4.2014
Kst/-



Read more...

Thursday, September 19, 2013

CTET 82/150 marks reserved category candidate is not eligible for UP Govt. Teachers Selection / Recruitment Process

CTET 82/150 marks reserved category candidate is not eligible for UP Govt. Teachers Selection / Recruitment Process






No relaxation to candidate, see judgement -
Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.


See Complete Judgement -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37084 of 2013
Petitioner :- Minakshi Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Srivastava,J.S.Lodhi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.K.Rai

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Minakashi Rai, petitioner has approached this Court with request to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Assistant Teacher treating 54.66% marks obtained by her as 55% obtained by her in C.T.E.T as petitioner has received 82 marks out of 150 i.e 54.66% and as the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi has already declared as qualified treating the aforesaid marks as 55% marks in C.T. E.T, and accordingly similar view be taken by the respondents.
Petitioner is OBC category candidate and she has completed her BTC course after completing graduation. Petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature for C.T.E.T (Central Teachers Eligibility Test) and in the said examination petitioner has received 82 marks out of 150 marks which comes as 54.66% and the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi, treating the same as 55% marks has proceeded to declare the petitioner as qualified and a note has also been appended therein that said qualification is applicable for recruitment of teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi.
Applications thereafter have been invited for making selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parisad vide order dated 26.04.2013 and therein eligibility criteria has been prescribed as follows:
1.     avkosnu gasrw ik=rk
(i)    'kSf{kd vgZrk& lgk;d v/;kid ds inks ij p;u@fu;qfDr gsrq ,sls vH;FkhZ ik= gksxs tks Hkkjr es fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; ls Lukrd dh mikf/k j[krs gks jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqla/kku ,oa izf'k{k.k ifj"kn m0 iz0 }kjk vk;ksftr nks o"khZ; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k nks o"hkZ; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k fof'k"V ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ fd, gks m0iz0 vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr d{kk 1 ls 5 gsrq v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ fd,s gksA ;gk ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd f'k{kd izk=rk ijh{kk es lQy vH;FkhZ og gksxs ftUgksus U;wure 60 izfr'kr vad izkIr fd, gks ysfdu vuqlfpr tkfr@vuqlfpr tutkfr @ vU; fiNMk oxZ @ HkwriwoZ lSfud @ fodykax Js.kh @ Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ks ds fy, U;wure iw.kkZd 55 izfr'kr gksA
Petitioner's submission is that her candidature has not at all been considered by the respondents on account of the fact that petitioner has not at all got to her credit 55% marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test as such petitioner's candidature cannot be considered same being not in consonance with the advertisement accordingly petitioner is before this Court.
Sri Jitendra Singh Lodhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once Central Teachers Eligibility Test has been passed by the petitioner and therein she has received 54.66% marks and same has been accepted to be 55% marks by rounding up the same and thereafter accordingly she has been declared as qualified then there is no occasion to treat the petitioner as ineligible in view of this rejection of petitioner's candidature is per se bad.
Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate on the other hand contended that selection and appointment is to be made in the institution run and managed by Basis Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and in consoance with the provision as contained under U.P. Basic Education Tehacer Serivce Rules 1981, the eligibility criteria has been fixed and therein clear cut mention has been made that incumbent should have to his/her credit graduation degree and should have to his/her credit BTC certificate of training and should have successfully passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted either by State Government or Central Government and clarification has also been given that only those candidate shall be considered as eligible who have to his/her credit minimum 60% marks for general category and for Scheduled caste / Scheduled Tribe category candidate, OBC category candidate/ Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter category candidate should have to his/her credit minimum 55% marks.
It is true that petitioner has qualified Central Teachers Eligibility Test as therein out of 150 marks, she has obtained 82 marks i.e. 54.66% and Central Board of Secondary Education in its turn has proceeded to round up the marks of petitioner by treating the same as 55% and petitioner has been shown to have qualified with asterix mark and accordingly as per said asterix mark note has been appended clearly mentioning that said qualification is applicable for recruitment of teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi.
Petitioner submits that in the past once her 54.66% marks has been rounded off to 55% by the Central Board of Secondary New Delhi then Basic Shiksha Parishad should also treated the same as 55% marks.
Eligibility criteria as has been prescribed is governed by the statutory Rules known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 as amended up till date and once in consonace with the aforesaid Rules qualification and eligibility criteria has been provided for and same clearly proceeds to mention that incumbent should have passed Teacher Eligibility Test conducted either by the State Government or by the Central Government and the candidates of General category should have obtained minimum 60% marks and the candidates of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes, OBC/Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter should have obtained minimum 55% marks.
This is also fully reflected in the present case, that as far as Central Teacher Eligibility Test is concerned, same is governed by Central Teacher Eligibility Test Rules, 2011 (C.T.E.T), and same is in reference to schools, affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education. Said Rules in itself provides for applicablity of the same, and also categorically proceeds to mention, that schools owned and managed by the State Government/ Local Bodies and aided shcools shall consider the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the State Government. However a State Government can also consider CTET if it decides not to conduct State TET.
Here the State Govenremnt does condut its own State TET, but in its wisdom has chosen to give opportunity to incumbents who have passed TET conducted by Central Government, but such opportunity has been restricted qua those category of candidates who have recevied 55% minimum marks in CTET. Central Board of Secondary Education, for institutions affiliated to it can round up 54.66% marks to 55% marks, but when it comes to claimig appointment in institution, run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, said rounding of would be of no consequence and candidate will have to have to his credit minimum 55% in Teachers Eligibility Test.
Accepted position is that petitioner has not obtained minimum 55% marks and has obtained 54.66% marks and petitioner submits that theory of rounding up to be passed and she should be treated as eligible.
Question is can 54.66% marks in aggregate be treated minimum 55% in aggregate ? Admittedly 54.66% marks in aggregate are less than 55% marks in aggregate. In view of this by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that petitioner has to her credit the eligibility criteria so prescribed. Said issue has already been negated by this Court, as per the judgement in the case of Ranjana Kushwaha Vs. state of U.P. 2009 (2) E&MC 94, wherein also requirement was minimum 45% and candidate had received 44.8% , therein candidate have been held to be ineligible, and in the said judgement, the two earlier judgements have been referred to wherein 49.67 % and 49.66% have not been accepted as equivalent to 50%, namely the case of Vani Pali Tripathi Vs. Director, 2003(1) UPLBEC 427; Pranjal Bishnoi Vs. U.P. Technical University 2003 (3) ESC 1470. In such a situation 54.66% specilly marks cannot be treated as equivalent to 55% when emphasis is given in the eligibility criteria, to the minimum marks to be there, then said minimum makes has to be obtained by concerned candidate and there can not be any scope of compromise with the same by invoking principal of rounding up. State of U.P. has already fixed the minimum marks to be obtained by the candidate i.e. minimum 60% by the General candidates and candidates of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes, OBC/Ex Armyman/ Physically Handicapped/Freedom Fighter should have obtained minimum 55% marks. Said percentage of marks as fixed on the minimum side cannot be further lowered.
Apex Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission vs Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6201 OF 2011) decided on 02.08.2011 reported in 2011 (8) SCC 108 has taken view that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement is being extracted below:
"9. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off.
10.There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same then it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
12.The entire record of the main written examination was also produced before us which indicates that there are also candidates who have got more than the respondent in the aggregate but has not been able to get 33% marks in each paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks in each paper in the Main written examination could and should have also been called for viva-voce examination, which would amount to a very strange and complicated situation and also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of statutory provision.
13.When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.7.2013
Dhruv


For authenticate / certified copy, kindly approach to concerned authority of Allahabad Highcourt.
Information given here is only informatory in nature.

Read more...

Saturday, August 31, 2013

UPTET 2013 : Withheld Result Released


UPTET 2013 : Withheld Result Released


UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates /   






As per sources, withheld result of UPTET 2013 is published on following link -



Read more...

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

UPTET 2013 : टीईटी परीक्षार्थियों ने किया हंगामा


UPTET 2013 : टीईटी परीक्षार्थियों ने किया हंगामा


UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates /  Teacher Recruitment News


इलाहाबाद (ब्यूरो)। यूपी शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा-2013 का परीक्षा परिणाम घोषित होने के बाद उपजे विवाद में अब परीक्षार्थी कार्बन कॉपियां लेकर सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी कार्यालय के चक्कर लगा रहे हैं। उन्हें ओएमआर की कार्बन कापियां उपलब्ध कराई गईं थी, जिसके आधार पर परीक्षार्थियों ने आरोप लगाया है कि उन्हें परीक्षा में कम नंबर दिए गए हैंइस तरह की अब तक 50 शिकायतें सचिव परीक्षा नियामक के पास पहुंच चुकी हैं। कार्बन कापी के आधार पर परीक्षार्थियों ने कुछ सवालों पर आपत्ति जताई थी, जिसकी जांच के लिए कमेटी बनाई गई थी। इसके बाद परिणाम घोषित किए गए तो परीक्षार्थी इन्हीं कार्बन कॉपियों के आधार पर कह रहे हैं कि उन्होंने सवालों के जवाब में ओएमआर शीट पर जितने काले घेरों को रंगा था, उससे कम अंक उन्हें दिए गए हैं। सचिव परीक्षा नियामक नीना श्रीवास्तव का कहना है कि हमारे पास सभी परीक्षार्थियों की परीक्षा से संबंधित सभी प्रमाण हैं, जिससे मिलान करने पर सामने आ रहा है कि परीक्षार्थी कार्बन कॉपियों में खुद ही काला घेरा बनाकर ला रहे हैं



News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (21.8.13)

Read more...

Saturday, August 17, 2013

UPTET : New Problem Arises in UPTET Language Exam / Result

UPTET : New Problem Arises in UPTET Language Exam / Result

UPTET 2013, UPTET 2013 Result




Read more...

Monday, August 12, 2013

UPTET 2013 Result Declared : टीईटी का परिणाम घोषित


UPTET 2013 Result Declared : टीईटी का परिणाम घोषित

 UPTET 2013 Primary Upper Primary Level Result Declared | Download Uttar Pradesh TET Exam Results 2013 http://upbasiceduboard.gov.in


हम अन्य वेब साइट्स की तरह झूठी सूचनाएं देते ,
हमने सर्व प्रथम यू पी टी ई टी 2011 के परिणाम की सूचना दी थी और 
एक बार फिर हम यू पी टी ई टी 2013  के
 परिणाम की सूचना दे रहे हैं 







Declaration of UPTET 2013 Result | Download  
Uttar Pradesh TET Exam Results 2013 
http://upbasiceduboard.gov.in



   
लखनऊ : बीती 27 व 28 जून को संपन्न हुई उप्र शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (यूपीटीईटी) 2013 का परिणाम सोमवार को घोषित कर दिया गया। सामान्य के मुकाबले भाषा शिक्षकों के लिए आयोजित परीक्षाओं में सफल अभ्यर्थियों का प्रतिशत कहीं ज्यादा है।

सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी नीना श्रीवास्तव के मुताबिक प्राथमिक स्तर के लिए आयोजित टीईटी में कुल 94,358 अभ्यर्थी शामिल हुए थे जिनमें से 19.99 प्रतिशत यानी 18,862 सफल हुए हैं। प्राथमिक स्तर के भाषा शिक्षकों के लिए आयोजित टीईटी में शामिल हुए कुल 15,994 अभ्यर्थियों में से 56.39 प्रतिशत यानी 9020 सफल हुए हैं। वहीं उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर की टीईटी में शामिल 5,18,581 अभ्यर्थियों में से महज 6.26 प्रतिशत यानी 32,443 परीक्षार्थी उत्तीर्ण हुए हैं। उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर के भाषा शिक्षकों के लिए आयोजित टीईटी में शामिल 93,633 अभ्यर्थियों में से 45.32 प्रतिशत यानी 42,430 सफल हुए हैं। परीक्षा का परिणाम 13 अगस्त को अपराह्न 12 बजे से वेबसाइट द्धह्लह्लश्च:/ह्वश्चढ्डड्डह्यद्बष्द्गस्त्रह्वढ्डश्रड्डह्मस्त्र.द्दश्र1.द्बठ्ठ/ह्लद्गह्ल-ह्मद्गह्यह्वद्यह्ल.ड्डह्यश्च3 पर भी देखा जा सकता है



News Sabhaar : Jagran (12.8.13)
How To See, Search, Save & Download UPTET 2013 Result from 
http://www.upbasiceducationboard.in/ t -
First of all you should open the official portal  -   http://upbasiceduboard.gov.in or http://www.upbasiceducationboard.in/ then click on Uttar Pradesh TET Result 2013, after that see your admit card for entering the roll number and fill it in to roll number box. Finally the result will show on your computer screen, take a print of your result and cut off marks

Read more: http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#ixzz2bm959BjS

UPTET Result 2013 Declared At upbasiceduboard.gov.in

Read more...

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Declaration of UPTET 2013 Result | Download Uttar Pradesh TET Exam Results 2013 http://upbasiceduboard.gov.in


Declaration of UPTET 2013 Result | Download  Uttar Pradesh TET Exam Results 2013 http://upbasiceduboard.gov.in

We are first to Publish information of UPTET 2011 result, And we again prove by publishing details of UPTET 2013 result very soon.


Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board (UPBEB) is going to publish Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test 2013 Result (UPTET 2013 Result) today . Those candidates who have appeared for UPTET 2013 Exam, they can see the result from today late evening / or in next 2-3 days.

There are around Six Lakh candidates have appeared for UPTET Exam 2013 and eagerly waiting for the UPTET 2013 Result. Now the wait is over now, it is expecting that UBBEB will published the UPTET 2013 Result Shortly.

Those candidates who have given Uttar Pradesh TET Exam 2013, they can see the result from today evening on the official web portal, so get ready with your admit card the result is about to come out.

How To See, Search, Save & Download UPTET 2013 Result from http://www.upbasiceducationboard.in/ t -
First of all you should open the official portal  -   http://upbasiceduboard.gov.in or http://www.upbasiceducationboard.in/ then click on Uttar Pradesh TET Result 2013, after that see your admit card for entering the roll number and fill it in to roll number box. Finally the result will show on your computer screen, take a print of your result and cut off marks.

*********************
This Blog was first to Publish information of UPTET 2011 result, And we again prove by publishing details of UPTET 2013 result very soon.

Keep visiting this Blog to Download UPTET 2013 Result.

Read more...

Thursday, August 1, 2013

UPTET 2013 Declaration of Result till 10th August 2013


UPTET 2013 Declaration of Result till 10th August 2013






Read more...

Friday, July 26, 2013

UPTET 2013 :टीईटी में मिलेंगे गलत सवालों के पूरे नंबर


UPTET 2013 :टीईटी में मिलेंगे गलत सवालों के पूरे नंबर


UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News


-न मेरिट प्रभावित होगी और न परीक्षार्थियों का उत्तीर्ण प्रतिशत

-सोलह सवालों पर आई आपत्तियों को विशेषज्ञों ने सही ठहराया

इलाहाबाद : राज्य शैक्षिक पात्रता परीक्षा में पूरी तरह गलत सवालों की वजह से मेरिट नहीं प्रभावित होगी। जिन सवालों के चारों विकल्प गलत पाए गए हैं, उस पर परीक्षार्थियों को पूरे नंबर दिए जाएंगे। इससे परीक्षार्थियों के उत्तीर्ण प्रतिशत पर कोई भी असर नहीं पड़ेगा

परीक्षा नियामक कार्यालय ने टीईटी को लेकर आई आपत्तियों के निस्तारण के बाद यह फैसला किया है। सूत्रों के अनुसार परीक्षा के चारों वर्गो के प्रश्नपत्रों और उनके विकल्पों के बारे में एक हजार से अधिक आपत्तियां आई थीं। कई दिनों तक चले इनके परीक्षण के बाद इनमें सोलह सवालों पर आपत्तियों को सही पाया गया है। आठ सवाल प्राथमिक स्तर की परीक्षा के हैं और आठ सवाल उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर की परीक्षा के। इनमें सभी सवाल पूरी तरह गलत नहीं हैं। कुछ के विकल्पों में अंतर मिले हैं। अर्थात नियामक कार्यालय की उत्तरमाला में जो विकल्प सही दर्शाया गया है, परीक्षार्थियों ने अपने तर्क से किसी दूसरे विकल्प को सही बताया है। परीक्षा से जुड़े लोगों के अनुसार विशेषज्ञों ने ऐसे प्रश्नों के परीक्षण के बाद पाया है कि दोनों ही उत्तर सही हो सकते हैं। ऐसी स्थिति में दोनों विकल्पों को सही मानकर उन्हें टिक करने वालों को पूरे अंक दिए जाएंगे। परीक्षा नियामक कार्यालय की सचिव नीना श्रीवास्तव की देखरेख में विशेषज्ञों की राय के बाद यह निर्णय लिए गए हैं।

परीक्षा नियामक कार्यालय फिलहाल इस बात से संतुष्ट है कि इस बार आपत्तिजनक प्रश्नों का परीक्षण पहले ही कराकर उन्हें चिह्नित कर लिया गया है। इससे पहले 2011 की टीईटी में कई प्रश्न सवालों के घेरे में आ गए थे और परीक्षार्थियों को अदालत तक जाना पड़ा था। तब इस परीक्षा का आयोजन उत्तर प्रदेश माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद ने किया था और तमाम आलोचनाओं को झेलने के बाद रिजल्ट को कई बार संशोधित करना पड़ा था। उक्त परीक्षा में लगभग तीन लाख परीक्षार्थी शामिल हुए थे जबकि इस बार इनकी संख्या लगभग साढ़े सात लाख है। परीक्षा गत 27-28 जून को प्रदेश के सभी जनपदों में संपन्न कराई गई थी

इतनी बड़ी संख्या के बाद भी परीक्षा नियामक कार्यालय की कोशिश जल्द से जल्द परिणाम घोषित करने की है। रजिस्ट्रार विभागीय परीक्षाएं नवल किशोर शर्मा के अनुसार इसके लिए युद्ध स्तर पर कार्य चल रहा है। चूंकि पूरी परीक्षा कंप्यूटराइज्ड प्रक्रिया से कराई गई है, इसलिए रिजल्ट भी वेबसाइट पर ही घोषित किया जाएगा

News Source / Sabhaar : Jagran (26.7.2013)
****************************************
Ye Sab CTET Exam Mein Kyun Nahin Hota.
Why all this not happens in CTET Exam

Kyun UPTET Sudhhata Se Pariksha Nahin Kara Pataa
Why UPTET exam not conducted with purity/correctness.
Read more...