/* remove this */
Showing posts with label Allahabad Highcourt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allahabad Highcourt. Show all posts

Friday, March 29, 2024

Basic Shiksha UP : HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - इंटर डिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर का लाभ लेने वालों को प्रमोशन का दोहरा लाभ नहीं

 Basic Shiksha UP : HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - इंटर डिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर का लाभ लेने वालों को प्रमोशन का दोहरा लाभ नहीं 

 
 Court No. - 38
  
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5234 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
 
Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioner has filed this petition claiming therein that petitioner was earlier working in Junior High School, Mohnapur, Block- Laxmipur, District- Maharajganj on 05.05.2015. On 23.06.2016, State Government issued a transfer policy for transferring the teachers of the Institutions run by Basic Shiksha Parishad in pursuance of the transfer policy dated 23.06.2016. Petitioner was transferred to District- Fatehpur vide order dated 21.08.2016. It is petitioner's contention that he was informed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur that the batchmates of the petitioner functioning in the District-Fatehpur at that time were not promoted and, therefore, petitioner has to go to his district from where he was transferred or he will have to work on a demoted post as an Assistant Teacher available at that time in district-Fatehpur. Petitioner in para-10 of the writ petition has mentioned that he was left with no other option but to approach his district i.e. Maharajganj for the required order as per the direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur. Petitioner's contention is that since transfer has been made in terms of the policy, therefore his Grade-pay could not have been reduced from Rs.4600 to Rs.4200. Petitioner is entitled to pay protection.

In support of this contention, petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in Writ-A No.25804 of 2018 and order dated 08.08.2019 passed in Writ-A No.14899 of 2019 and has sought a relief that he be paid salary with Grade-pay of Rs.4600 as he was getting before his transfer to District-Fatehpur.

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that case of the petitioner is different from what has been canvassed by the petitioner and petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

It is submitted that as per the transfer policy dated 23.06.2016 as contained in Annexure-3, there is a specific provision that persons seeking transfer will be transferred in the desired district only when in the concerned district where a person is seeking transfer, persons of his batch are working on an equal post. It is submitted that admittedly in District-Fatehpur where petitioner sought transfer, his batcmates were not promoted to the Grade-pay of Rs.4600 and petitioner was given an option to either revert back to the district from where, he was transferred i.e. district-Maharajganj or in the alternative except the position as was obtaining in relation to his batch-mates.

At this stage, learned counsel submits that with a view to enjoy his transfer to District-Fatehpur, petitioner had gone back to district-Maharajganj, got himself reverted in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200 and thereafter joined at Fatehpur in the Grade pay of Rs.4200.

In view of such facts, now at this distance of time it is not open to the petitioner to claim relief and these facts have not been appreciated or were not brought to the notice of the co-ordinate bench when orders were passed in Writ-A No.25804 of 2018 and Writ-A No.14899 of 2019.

At this stage, Sri Shukla submits that under similar facts and circumstances, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Council, Allahabad has passed orders and has allowed pay protection. He has drawn attention of this court to order no. Basic Shiksha Parishad/5468/2018-19 dated 23.07.2018, relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinunder:-

";kphx.kksa }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu ,ao vki }kjk izLrqr vk[;k ds voyksduksijkUr ;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k fd ;kphx.kksa dk vUrtZuinh; LFkkukUrj.k izns'k ds fofHkUu tuinksa ls tuin tkSuiqj ds fy, ifj"kn ds fofHkUu vkns'kksa }kjk fd;k x;kA pwafd ;kphx.kksa dh inksUufr vius dk;Zjr tuin esa gks pqdh Fkh vkSj ml cSp ds fu;qfDr f'k{kdksa dh tuin tkSuiqj esa inksUufr ugha gq;h Fkh] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kphx.kksa }kjk vius dk;Zjr tuinksa ls viuk inkour ysdj tuin tkSuiqj esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;kA ;kphx.kksa dk dFku gS fd budk osru ,y0ih0lh0 ds vk/kkj ij u fu/kkfjr djrs gq, inkuour in dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA tcfd c<+k gqvk osru fdlh Hkh n'kk esa de ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA mDr ds lEcU/k esa lwP; gS fd ;kphx.kksa dks Pay Protection dk ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA vr% ,y0ih0lh0 (vfUre osru izek.k i=) ds vk/kkj ij u;s tuin esa osru dk vkx.ku dj Pay Protection ds fu;eksa dk ikyu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A mDr ds lEcU/k esa vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;kphx.kksa dks vfUre osru izek.k i= (,y0ih0lh0) ds vk/kkj ij osru vkWx.ku dj Pay Protection ds fu;eksa dk ikyu djrs gq, osru Hkqxrku djus dh dk;Zokgh dj ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsaA"
Thus, it is evident that petitioner himself had furnished an affidavit before the B.S.A. and vide order dated 22.07.2013, petitioner was demoted and then his pay was fixed in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200. Thus, there is no question of any pay protection because once petitioner sought transfer in a district of his own choice and decided to forego his promotion in the district where he was functioning on account of the fact that his batchmates were not promoted in the district of his choice where he sought his transfer, therefore, in terms of the order dated 23.06.2016 Clause-2 which reads as follows:

"2&mYys[kuh; gS fd m0 iz0 csfld f'k{kk ¼v/;kid½ lsok fu;ekoyh 1981 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ ds fu;e&4 ds vuqlkj ifj"knh; v/;kidksa dk lsok dk laoxZ LFkkuh; fudk; dk gS izR;sd tuin esa nks LFkkuh; fudk; xzkeh.k ,oa uxj {ks= ifjHkkf"kr gSA fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&21 ds vuqlkj v/;kidksa dk LFkkUkkUrj.k ,d LFkkuh; fudk; ls nwljh LFkkuh; fudk; esa v/;kid ds Lo;a ds vuqjks/k ij fd;s tkus dk izkfo/kku gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vUrtZuinh; LFkkUkkUrj.k v/;kid dk vf/kdkj ugh gS] fQj Hkh v/;kidksa ds Lo;a ds vuqjks/k ,oa ifjfLFkfrtU; dkj.kksa ds n`f"vxr okafNr tuinksa esa miyC/k fjfDr ds lkis{k LFkkUkkUrj.k ij fd;k tk;sxkA vr% LFkkUkkUrj.k ds i'pkr ,d LFkkuh; ffudk; ls nwljs LFkkuh; fudk; esa LFkkuh; LFkkukUrfjr gksdj tkus ij v/;kid ml LFkkuh; fudk; laoxZ dh T;s"Brk dze esa dfu"Bre ekuk tk;sxkA"
Clause 3.2 reads as under:-

3.2 vUrtZuinh; LFkkukUrj.k gsrq bPNqd v/;kid }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij vkuykbUk vkosnu fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa v/;kid vf/keku dze esa 05 tuinksa dk fodYi izLrqr dj ldrs gSA v/;kidksa dk LFkkukUrj.k muds }kjk vf/keku dze esa fn;s x;s fodYi ds vk/kkj ij okafNr ftysa esa miyC/k fjfDr ds lkis{k gh mudh izkFkfedrk dze rFkk ojh;rk ds n`f"Vxr fd;k tk ldsxkA In view of the aforesaid Clauses, it is apparent that firstly, it is not a right vested in a Assistant Teacher/Teacher to seek transfer from one local body to another local body but a facility has been given under the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha (Adhyapak) Seva Niyamawali, 1981 for transfer of teachers from one local area to another local area, if posts in the equivalent cadre are vacant. The connotation of equivalent cadre means that posts in the same Grade pay is available. Once, petitioner exercises this right and has failed to produce any material to show that post in the Grade-pay of Rs.4600 was vacant and available at the place where petitioner sought transfer i.e. in District-Fatehpur then petitioner is not entitled to pay protection as he had voluntarily foregone the promotion in the Grade-pay of Rs.4600 and opted for demotion in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and to suppress this fact petitioner has deliberately not enclosed the copy of Last Pay Certificate (L.P.C.) to substantiate that they were not demoted to be accommodated in a transferred district on lower Grade pay of demoted post.
Law in regard to protection of pay is well settled as has been laid down in case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vs. Farid Sattar as reported in (2000) 4 SCC 13 wherein, it has been held that where a person on his own volition seeks transfer on certain terms and conditions accepted by him and the terms and conditions of unilateral transfer are very clear and there is no ambiguity in it. The terms and conditions provided that the respondent on transfer could be appointed to a post which is lower to the post which he was occupying prior to his transfer in such a situation, the pay of the respondent had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale and not with reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher posts. In para-6, it has been specifically mentioned that under the terms and conditions of the transfer the pay which the respondent was drawing on the higher post was not required to be protected when he joined the lower post of accountant.

The facts of this case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court are applicable in all force to the facts of the present case and once the petitioner himself had foregone promotion in the Grade-pay to Rs.4600 and opted for his promotion in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200, he is estopped from claiming dual advantage of transfer to a district of his own choice and drawing of higher Grade-pay from which he was demoted in terms of the policy so to be accommodated in the district of his own choice.

Thus, the orders on which petitioner has placed reliance are of no relevance for the present and the principles of pay protection will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner because once he was demoted then he was not drawing the salary in the Grade-pay of Rs.4600.

Accordingly, petitioner has failed to make out a case for pay protection and, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.7.2020 Ashutosh    



 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET),  , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com

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...

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

UPTET News - जजमेंट एनालिसिस 29334 भर्ती मामले में -

UPTET News - जजमेंट एनालिसिस 29334 भर्ती मामले में 

ये जजमेंट एंजेलिसिस सोशल मीडिया पर शेयर की जा रही है, जिसको किसी ने अपने हिसाब से तोड़ा मरोड़ा भी है, 2 जजों ने फैसला दिया है किसी एक जज ने नहीं 

एनालिसिस में अपनी राय रखते हुए किसी व्यक्ति ने इसको सुप्रीम कोर्ट में फैसला पलटने वाला बता दिया 
कहा कि टेट रिज़ल्ट से पहले बी एड / बी टी सी का रिजल्ट टेट परिक्षा  की गाइड लाइंस में नहीं है सिर्फ एपीयरिंग है | 
हालाँकि यह बात सही की टेट परीक्षा गाइडलेंस में बी एड / बी टी सी का रिजल्ट पहले आना चाहिए इस पर कुछ देखने क नहीं मिला ,
लेकिन 2 जजों की बेंच ने इसको परिभाषित किया - कहा की सिर्फ बी  एड / बी टी सी  एपीयरिंग में तो टेट का सर्टिफिकेट पहले एवार्ड हो जायेगा , और बी एड / बी टी सी में बाद में कोई फेल हो गया , या फिर एपीयरिंग होता रहा और  फेल होता रहा तो उसका टेट सर्टिफिकेट कैसे वेलिड होगा ,
और इन कारणों से 2 जजों की बेंच ने बी  एड / बी टी सी  एपीयरिंग के साथ उत्तीर्ण होना टेट रिजल्ट जारी होने की तिथि से पहले जरुरी बता दिया | 
हो सकता है सुप्रीम कोर्ट में फैसला पलट भी जाये (वैसे भी यह सब पहले क्लियर होना चाहिए ) यह मामला हज़ारों लोगों की नौकरी पर संकट है 
72825 , 10000 बी टी सी  भर्ती , 15000 बी टी सी  भर्ती , उर्दू वालों की भर्ती ,16800 बी टी सी  भर्ती, 29334 जूनियर साइंस मैथ शिक्षक भर्ती 
तमाम पर प्रभाव डालेगा ,
साथ ही जब तक इस मामले पर स्टे नहीं आता , ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों का  ट्रांसफर भी अटक गया है , क्योंकि नियुक्ति रद्द करने के आदेश हैं तो ट्रांसफर कैसे होंगे 




[Judgment Analysis] टेट को प्रशिक्षण योग्यता से पहले पास करने वालो को नौकरी से निकालने वाले आदेश का विश्लेषण
.
1) यह निर्णय Division Bench से 29334 के सम्बंध में आया है जिसमें BSA को निर्देशित किया गया है कि वे  29334 में चयनित ऐसे लोगो की पहचान करें जिनका BTC, B.Ed. का Result उनके द्वारा भर्ती में लगाये गए टेट रिजल्ट के बाद में आया हो तथा उनकी सफाई सुनने का एक अवसर देकर उन्हें नौकरी से निकाल दें। (SPLA 506/18) यानी 30.05.2018 के बाद से उन सभी के टेट इनवैलिड हो गए हैं जिनका बीएड बीटीसी का रिजल्ट टेट के रिजल्ट के बाद आया हो।
.
.
*2) किसी अन्य भर्ती को लेकर यह निर्णय नहीं है लेकिन इस बात की संभावना से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि BSA 72825 समेत उसके बाद होने वाली सभी भर्तियो को भी कसौटी पर घिस सकते हैं और इस सम्बंध में परिषद द्वारा निर्देश आ सकते हैं।*
.
.
3) इस निर्णय के आने के पीछे 2 फैक्टर्स हैं-
.
● Statuory Provision - NCTE सर्कुलर 11.02.2011 का क्लॉज़ 5(i) और (ii) + शासनादेश 15.05.2013
.
● विभिन्न याचिकाएं - 26660/2013, 27036/2016, 52021/2017,
.
.
*4) इसके अलावा जो इंपोर्टेन्ट रोल प्ले करता है वो है डॉक्ट्रिन ऑफ purposive interpretation  और literal interpretation.*
.
.
5) अभी तक 4 जजेस ए पी शाही, अश्वनी मिश्रा, दिलीप गुप्ता और जयंत बनर्जी purposive interpretation के साथ गए हैं न कि literal इंटरप्रिटेशन के और अब गेंद सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पाले में जाएगी।
.
.
*6) RTE एक्ट 2009 के द्वारा केंद सरकार ने NCTE को अकेडमिक अथॉरिटी बनाया जो 8 से 14 वर्ष के स्टूडेंट्स को पढ़ाने के लिए सहायक अध्यापकों की मिनिमम योग्यता तय करेगी।*
.
.
7) NCTE ने 23.08.2010 को नोटिफिकेशन जारी करके न्यूनतम अकेडमिक योग्यता तय कर दी जिसमें टेट क्वालीफाई कम्पलसरी था।
.
.
*8) टेट के लिए NCTE ने 11.02.2011 को एक सर्कुलर जारी किया जिसमें क्लॉज़ 5(ii) में कहा गया कि वो व्यक्ति भी टेट में बैठने के लिए योग्य होंगे जो 23.08.2010 के नोटिफकेशन में उल्लिखित NCTE या RCI से मान्यता प्राप्त किसी अध्यापक शिक्षण कोर्स 'pursue' कर रहे हों यानी अध्यन्नरत हों।*
.
.
9) यानी टेट में बैठने के लिए बीएड बीटीसी डीएड आदि पास होना ही कंपल्सरी नहीं है बल्कि उन कोर्स में पढ़ रहे भी इस क्लॉज़ 5(ii) अनुसार योग्य है।
.
.
*10) इस क्लॉज़ में यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया कि क्या फर्स्ट ईयर में पढ़ने वाले या यूं कहें कि जो अंतिम सेमेस्टर में नहीं है या अंतिम वर्ष में नहीं है वो टेट में appear हो सकते हैं या नहीं।*
.
.
11) सरकार द्वारा 17.04.2013 को टेट के सम्बंध में गाइडलाइन्स जारी की गई थी जिसमें केवल प्रशिक्षण योग्यता उत्तीर्ण लोगो को ही टेट में बैठने की अनुमति थी।
.
.
*12) इस क्लॉज़ 5(ii) को ग्राउंड बनाकर इस GO को चैलेंज किया गया जिसमें 13.05.2013 को रिट याचिका - A 26660/2013 में कोर्ट ने कहा कि जब NCTE ने प्रावधान किया हुआ है तो आप क्यों नहीं कर रहे और फाइनल ईयर में पढ़ रहे तथा रिजल्ट का वेट कर रहे अभ्यर्थियों को भी शामिल करने का आदेश किया।*
.
.
13) सरकार ने दो दिन बाद ही 15.05.2013 को सुधार करते हुए नया GO जारी किया जिसमें बिंदु (क) और (ख) के द्वारा शिक्षण प्रशिक्षण परीक्षाओं में सम्मिलित हो रहे अभ्यर्थियों को भी टेट में बैठने के लिए allow कर दिया। साथ मे यह भी कहा कि टेट में बैठ तो जाओ और पास भी करलो लेकिन वैलिड तभी होगा जब बीटीसी बीएड आदि पास करलोगे।
.
.
*14) इसमें भी स्थिति को स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया। 29334 भर्ती को इसी ग्राउंड पर कुछ अभ्यर्थी कोर्ट ले गए जिसमें 08.05.2018 को हाई कोर्ट ने फर्स्ट ईयर या सेकंड सेमेस्टर पास न करने वालों को टेट मे बैठने से अयोग्य घोषित कर दिया है। (Writ- A 52021/17)*
.
.
15) सिंगल जज मिश्रा जी ने जो आलरेडी नियुक्त हो चुके हैं उनको सीधा सीधा बाहर करने का आदेश नहीं किया था बल्कि उनके लिए कोर्ट ने कहा था कि RTI एक्ट द्वारा ऐसे लोगो की जानकारी ली जा सकती है जो टेट में फर्स्ट ईयर को पास किये बिना बैठे हैं।
.
.
*16) और BSA को यदि ऐसे लोगो को नियुक्ति से हटाने को लेकर प्रत्यावेदन मिलते हैं तो 6 माह के अंदर उचित कार्यवाही की जाए यानी उनकी नियुक्ति निरस्त की जाए।*
.
.
17) इस निर्णय में भार याचियों पर डाल दिया गया कि वो पता लगाएं की टेट को फर्स्ट ईयर में रहते हुए किसने पास किया है और BSA को शिकायत करें तब जाकर कार्यवाही होगी। इसके विरुद्ध याची DB चले गए और कहा कि हमारे लिए यह सम्भव नहीं है यह कार्य BSA को करना चाहिए।
.
.
*18) खण्ड पीठ ने अपने 30.05.2018 के निर्णय में यह मांग मानली और बोल दिया कि यह काम BSA ही करेंगे न कि याची। अब तक तो सब ठीक था सिंगल जज के निर्णय के बाद फाइनल ईयर में टेट पास वाले जश्न मना रहे थे कि हम तो बच गए पर DB ने उनके जश्न को मातम में बदल दिया।*
.
.
19) DB ने एक कदम आगे बढ़ते हुए कहा कि ट्रेनिंग क्वालिफिकेशन जैसे बीएड BTC का फाइनल रिजल्ट टेट के रिजल्ट से पहले आजाना चाहिए तभी वैलिड माना जायेगा ये बिल्कुल unacceptable जजमेंट है और सुप्रीम कोर्ट में इस एक्सटेंट तक पलटना कन्फर्म्ड है।
.
.
*20) जैसा हमने पहले भी कहा कि ये आदेश क्लॉज़ 5(ii) को purposively इन्टरप्रेट करके किये गए हैं। इसमें 5(ii) को (i) के साथ रखकर पढ़ा गया है।*
.
.
21) 5(i) में कहा गया कि ट्रेनिंग में पास हुए लोग योग्य हैं दूसरे में कहा कि जो पढ़ रहे हैं वो भी योग्य हैं अब इसी दूसरे में pursuing शब्द को literally interpret किया जाता है तो training में एडमिशन का पहला दिन भी pursuing में आएगा।
.
.
*22) इंटेंशन NCTE का वही रहा होगा जो जज साहब कह रहे हैं लेकिन शब्दो के चयन को लेकर NCTE ने गलती करदी अब उस गलती का खामियाजा नियुक्त भुगतने के कगार पर हैं।*
.
.
23) कुछ केसेस में SC ने कहा है कि यह कोर्ट का काम नहीं है कि वह STATUTORY प्रोविशन की इंटेंशन को वहां इन्टरप्रेट करे जहां स्पेसिफक शब्द USE किये गए हों और जिनका स्पष्ट मतलब निकलता हो।
.
.
*24) वहीं कुछ केसेस में कहा है कि यदि कोई प्रोविशन केवल हड्डी हड्डी है तो उसपर मांस और स्किन चढ़ाने का कार्य कोर्ट कर सकती है।*
.
.
25) यही कोर्ट की पोलीवोकल नेचर है अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट में निम्न सम्भावनाएं हैं-
.
● *कोर्ट purposive इंटरप्रिटेशन के साथ जाते हुए DB के ऑर्डर को हल्का सा मॉडिफाई करके उपहेल्ड करे। मॉडिफाई बस वहां होगा जहां उन्होंने कहा है कि टेट के रिजल्ट से पहले BTC बीएड का रिजल्ट आ जाना चाहिए और कहदें कि जिनका फर्स्ट ईयर पास किये बिना टेट है उनको निकालो बाहर।*
.
● कोर्ट literally interpret करे और बोले कि हम पालिसी मेकर नहीं है यदि NCTE PURSUING को टेट में बैठा रही है तो हम कुछ नहीं कर सकते जब NCTE PURSUING कह रही है तो आप लोग क्यों फाइनल और फर्स्ट के चक्कर मे फंसे हो। इस तरह सबको यहां तक कि फर्स्ट सेम में भी टेट पास करने वालो को बचा ले।
.
● *कोर्ट purposively जाए लेकिन कहे कि 23.08.2010 के नोटिफिकेशन के हिसाब से ये टेट पास कर चुके हैं और trained भी हैं तथा काफी समय से अच्छी सर्विस दे रहे हैं तो कोर्ट इन्हें डिस्टर्ब नहीं कर रही है लेकिन NCTE को निर्देश देती है कि वे इस 5(ii) को redefine करके संशोधित करे ताकि भविष्य में ऐसी गलती न हो।*
.
.
26) अब कोर्ट किस रूख के साथ जाती है यह कोई नहीं बता सकता हालांकि याची और प्रतिवादी अपनी अपनी जीत के दावे करेंगे ही जीतेगा कौन ये कोर्ट decide करेगी क्योंकि यह यहां से अब डिस्क्रेशनरी मेटर बन चुका है और किस बेंच में जाता है इस पर निर्भर करेगा क्योंकि ऐसे मामलों में जजेस का सोचने का नजरिया अलग अलग होता है।



 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...

Friday, December 22, 2017

UP Teacher Transfer - सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग पहले भी शिक्षिका पत्नियों को शिक्षक पति के जिले में अंतर जनपदीय स्थानांतरण कर चुके हैं , देखें देखें इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट की याचिका में -

UP Teacher Transfer - 
सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग पहले भी शिक्षिका पत्नियों को शिक्षक पति के जिले में अंतर जनपदीय स्थानांतरण कर चुके हैं , देखें देखें इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट की याचिका में - 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

A.F.R. 
Court No. - 26 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1273 of 2014 
Petitioner :- Mumtaz Tarannum 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aftab Ahmad 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg 

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. 
Heard Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 
The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher in Primary School (now promoted as Headmistress), by instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed the validity of the order dated 22nd January, 2014 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich whereby her representation staking her claim to be posted in Urban Local Area of District- Behraich has been rejected. 
In supported of the claim of the petitioner to be posted in an Urban Local Area, it has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the basic premise on the basis of which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is erroneous, inasmuch as, after the bifurcation of the erstwhile District-Basti and creation of District Siddharth Nagar, the Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar falls in an Urban Area whereas it has wrongly been recorded by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the impugned order that it still is situated in a Rural Area. 
The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2002 as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar (the then District- Basti). The petitioner thereafter got married to one Shri Naim Ahmad Ansari, who is also working as Assistant Teacher in District Behraich. After the marriage, the petitioner has been making representations for her transfer to District- Behraich so that she can fulfill her marital and family obligations. However, the request made by the petitioner for her transfer from District Siddharth Nagar to Behraich was only acceded to by the Secretary of the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad who by means of order dated 14th August, 2012 transferred her from District Siddharth Nagar to District-Behraich. 
On the basis of the aforesaid order of transfer dated 14th August, 2012, passed by the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, the petitioner was relieved under the order passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar dated 10th September 2012. Accordingly, she was relieved and she submitted her joining in the office of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich on 21st September 2012. After she joined in Behraich, the petitioner was posted on 19th December, 2012 at Primary School, Tepraha Chak, Tajwapur. This institution at Tepraha Chak Tajwapur falls in the Rural Local Area. 
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per transfer policy any teacher working in an Urban Local Area on inter district transfer or even otherwise has to be posted only in Urban Local Area and not in Rural Local Area. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various documents including the documents of Education Department itself to establish that Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar is situated in Urban Local Area and hence her posting at Primary School, Tepraha Chak, Tajwapur District-Behraich which lies in a Rural Area is against the policy of the respondents themselves. 
On the other hand, Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel representing the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad as well as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has vigorously attempted to defend the decision of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich and has stated that the Primary School situated at Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar, as per record maintained in the Basic Education Department, falls in the Rural Local Area. Hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 22nd January, 2014 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for her posting in an Urban Local Area. It has been contended by learned counsel representing the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the petitioner was transferred by the order of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad on 14th August, 2012 which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit filed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the said order of transfer depicts the petitioner's posting at Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar in Rural Area. He has also relied upon the information furnished by the petitioner in her application seeking her transfer which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit wherein the petitioner has herself sought her transfer in Rural Area Behraich and has also mentioned her posting at Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugardh District- Siddharth Nagar to be in a Rural Local Area. 
On the basis of the aforesaid two documents, Shri Ghaus Beg has stated that even as per the own assessment of the petitioner, she has been initially posted at District Siddharth Nagar in Rural Local Area, as such her claim for her posting in an Urban Local Area is not tenable. He has also stated that while posted in District Siddharth Nagar she has been drawing House Rent Allowance which is admissible to an incumbent posted in Rural Local Area. Thus, it cannot be said that she was posted at the Primary School situated in Urban Local Area and hence she has to be necessarily transferred and posted only to a Primary School situated in a Rural Local Area. 
It has also been asserted by the learned counsel representing the respondents that before considering the claim of the petitioner the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich had called for a report from Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar who also in his report has stated that Primary School Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar falls in Rural Local Area and not in Urban Local Area. 
I have given anxious consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 
The submission made by learned counsel appearing for Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari needs to be rejected for the reasons which are given below:- 
The Primary Institutions in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh which were earlier being run and managed under the supervision and administrative control of the Zila Panchayats and several Urban Local Bodies are now being run and managed by the Basic Education Board constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972. The said Act, 1972 has been enacted to provide for establishment of the Basic Education Board and matters connected thereof. On and from the date of commencement of the said 1972 Act, the control of teachers and properties of the Basic Schools situated both in the Municipal Areas and the Gram Panchayats were taken over under the statutory provisions contained in the said Act by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Second 2(e) of 1972 Act defines a local body to mean Zila Panchayat or Municipality as the case may be. Second 2(f) defines Municipality to mean a Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation as the case may be. Thus, for the purpose of 1972 Act, the local body includes the Rural Units of self governance as well as the Urban Local Bodies of self governance. 
As far as the service conditions of the teachers of these institutions are concerned, statutory rules have been framed, which are known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, which inter alia defines Rural Local Area to mean the area over which a Zila Parishad exercises jurisdiction. Urban Local Area has been defined to mean the area over which a Nagar Mahapalika Municipal Board, Town Area Committee, or Notified Area Committee exercises jurisdiction. Thus, the 1972 Act and the Service Rules 1981 lay down clear distinction between the Urban Local Area and Rural Local Area. These institutions situated both in an Urban Local Area and Rural Local Area are to be governed and managed by the provisions of the Service Rules 1981. An institution which falls under a Zila Panchayat will be an institution situated in Rural Local Area and an institution situated in a Nagar Mahapalika, Municipality, Town Area Committee, Notified Area Committee or any other such body of Urban Local self governance will be an institution situated in Urban Local Area. 
On account of rapid urbanization, there may be a situation when an institution at the time of its establishment or creation may be situated in a Rural Local Area and by passage of time with the development around such an institution, the same institution may fall within the local limits of an Urban Local Body. 
As is abundantly clear from various documents annexed along with writ petition, it appears that Primary School Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar was established in a Rural Local Area, however, with the passage of time the said area appears to have been included within the area of an Urban Local Body. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the form containing certain informations relating to Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar as Annexure 4 to the writ petition wherein it has been stated that it is situated within the limits of an Urban Local Body. The said document appears to have been counter signed by the Block Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar. Similarly when the Nagar Palika Parishad, Siddharth Nagar was likely to be re-constituted, a direction was issued to Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar to run the accounts of Ward Shiksha Nidhi under the joint signature of the Headmaster/Headmistress and another Assistant Teacher. The said instructions are contained in letter dated 14th April, 2012 addressed to Block Shiksha Adhikari of various development blocks including development block, Naugarh which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to this writ petition. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the petitioner while working as Headmistress of Primary School, Jawahar Nagar, Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar was allowed to operate the aforesaid account of Ward Shiksha Nidhi under the Joint Signature of herself and another Assistant Teachers. This fact is established from perusal of page 22 of the writ petition which is part of Annexure 5. 
Yet another document which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish that the Jawahar Nagar Primary School situated in Urban Area is the annual work plan and budget issued for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of District Siddharth Nagar which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition wherein the Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar has been shown to be in Urban Area and Primary School, Jawahar Nagar Development Block Naugarh District- Siddharth Nagar has also been shown to be situated in Ward Ramjam Nagar of the Municipality concerned, thus from the said document i.e. annual work plan and budget of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which is a scheme being run by the Education Department itself, it is clear that Primary School, Jawahar Nagar is situated in Ward Ramjan Nagar of the Municipality concerned. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the voter list of Ramjan Nagar, District- Siddharth Nagar which was prepared for the purpose of election of Nagarpalika Parishad, Siddharth Nagar. The petitioner appears to have been entrusted with the census work relating to census 2011. The Ward Ramjam Nagar has been shown to fall within the Nagar Palika Parishad, Siddharth Nagar in the document relating to census work which is available at page 31 of the writ petition. 
The aforesaid documents relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Annexures 4, 5, 6 and 7 have not been disputed by the respondents. Thus, so far as the current situation of Primary School Jawahar Nagar , Development Block Naugarh, District- Siddharth Nagar is concerned, undisputedly, the same falls in the Urban Local Area. 
So far as submission made by learned counsel appearing for Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari that in her application made by the petitioner seeking her transfer she has herself descried the institution to be situated in the Rural Area and that she has been drawing house rent allowance applicable to an incumbent serving in the Rural Area and that the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad while passing the transfer order dated 14th August 2012 has described the institution to be situated in Rural Local Area, are concerned, it may only be indicated that it appears that the records of the Education Department in District-Siddharth Nagar/Basti have not been updated. As already observed above, it is not a very unlikely situation that at the time of establishment of Primary School it may be situated in a Rural Local Area, however, with the passage of time the institution may get included within the limits of Urban Local Body. This is continuous process and if with the continuity of the process of urbanization and declaration of more and more Urban Local Bodies. District Education Department is not able to keep pace with the changes inasmuch as it does not upgrade its own regard, petitioner cannot be faulted with it. 
Thus, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2014 which has been passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Behraich rejecting the claim of the petitioner, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The consequential posting order of the petitioner dated 19th December, 2012 by which she has been posted at Primary School, Tepraha Chak Tajwapur, District- Behraich is hereby quashed. 
A direction is issued to the Zila Basic Education Officer, Behraich to post and place the petitioner in a Primary School situated within an Urabn Local Area at Behraich within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and order. 
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 
There will be no order as to costs.­ 
Order Date :- 20.4.2015 
Subodh/- 


 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, July 23, 2017

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News -गुपचुप ऑफ लाइन ट्रांसफर को रद्द किया कोर्ट ने , कहा ऑनलाइन पारदर्शी प्रक्रिया से नहीं आये , वापस पुराने स्कूल में भेजा जहाँ मूल तैनाती थी -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News -गुपचुप ऑफ लाइन ट्रांसफर को रद्द किया कोर्ट ने , कहा ऑनलाइन पारदर्शी प्रक्रिया से नहीं आये , वापस पुराने स्कूल में भेजा जहाँ मूल तैनाती थी  




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 7 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 333 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Mohd. Arif And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.Of Up Lucknow & Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Kanhaya Pal,Pooja Pal 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra 
connected with 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 489 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Manju Singh 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Edu.Basic Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Pandey 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar 
and 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 587 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Bajpai & Ors 
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjive Shukla 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Manish Mishra,Rajiv Singh Chauhan 
and 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 795 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Faheem Beg 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunesh Singh Pawar 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Manish Mishra 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. 
Pursuant to order dated 25.01.2017, Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education is present.� He has stated that after issuance of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the State Government has issued another Government Order dated 19.12.2016 providing therein that in terms of the earlier transfer policy embodied in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the remaining on-line application forms submitted by the teachers seeking their inter-district transfers can be considered in terms of the earlier policy itself.� The Government Order dated 19.12.2016 is taken on record. 
However, on a query being put to him as to whether before passing the transfer order dated 03.01.2017 whereby several inter-district transfers of the teachers has been effected, prior approval of the Basic Education Board, as is required to be taken under Rule 21 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, was taken or not, it has been stated by Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary that no such approval was sought before passing the order dated 03.01.2017.�� 
Such a course adopted by the State Government while passing the transfer order on 03.01.2017 is not only against the statutory provisions contained in Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules but is also in violation of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. 
It is noticeable that the Government Order dated 19.12.2016 permitted consideration of remaining on-line applications only in terms of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 and as such without seeking approval of the Basic Education Board, no such inter-district transfers could have been effected. 
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is not only that only one order on 03.01.2017 effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers was passed but there are several such orders. 
Learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Special Secretary present today has stated that in fact on 03.01.2017 two orders effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers have been passed by the State Government.� He has also stated that these two orders passed on 03.01.2017 contain lists of teachers most of whom had submitted off-line applications, which was impermissible under the Rules and the Government Order. 
Such a procedure of effecting inter-district transfer is neither contemplated in Rule 21 of the Rules nor in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. 
This bunch of writ petitions contain averments that while effecting inter-district transfers of teachers, the Basic Education Board and the respective Basic Shiksha Adhikaris have not followed the priority as contemplated in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016.� There appears to be large scale discrepancies in the inter-district transfers made by the respondents. 
Any statute or statutory Rules or even a Government Policy is binding on the Government as much as it is binding on others.�� The facts of this case clearly establish that State Government has acted against its own norms which are embodied in the Service Rules, 1981 and the Government order dated 23.06.2016.� Further, despite prescribing that only on-line applications seeking inter-district transfer shall be considered, the State Government while passing at least two orders on 03.01.2017 has considered off-line applications of teachers and passed orders thereon, which has not only resulted in making the process adopted by the Government non-transparent but has also deprived several teachers of the opportunity of making applications.� Such a course adopted by the State Government is, thus, prima facie, arbitrary and also suffers from the vice of malice in law as prima facie there is no justification for deviation from the prescribed norms. 
Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, operation and implementation of these two orders said to have been issued by the State Government on 03.01.2017 effecting inter-district transfers of the teachers in Primary and Junior High Schools in the State of U.P. are hereby stayed. 
The teachers who have been transferred in terms of the said orders will not be allowed to work and discharge their duties at the places of their new posting.� They shall, however, be permitted to discharge their duties in the schools where they have been working prior to passing of the orders on 03.01.2017 by the State Government. 
Let counter affidavit be filed in these matters by the respondents within a period of two weeks.� One week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. 
List after expiry of the aforesaid period showing the name of Sri Upendra Nath Mishra as counsel for the respondent. 
It will be open to the teachers who are affected by the order passed on 03.01.2017 by the State Government to seek their intervention in this case. 
Order Date :- 27.1.2017 
Renu/- 


 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...

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - याची बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में कार्यरत शिक्षक ने पत्नी के प्राइवेट सरकारी सहायता प्राप्त स्कूल के नजदीक अंतर जनपदीय ट्रांसफर माँगा , कोर्ट ने सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को सक्षम अधिकारी के पास केस भेजना को कहा

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - 




याची बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में कार्यरत शिक्षक ने पत्नी के प्राइवेट सरकारी सहायता प्राप्त स्कूल के नजदीक अंतर जनपदीय ट्रांसफर माँगा ,

कोर्ट ने सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को सक्षम अधिकारी के पास केस भेजना को कहा 


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 32 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16239 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Pushpraj Singh 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Kinkar Singh,Ajay Subrat Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi 

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.D.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 and Shri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.� 
The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.6.2016 in the Primary School Dilawaldeeh Pachpedwa Balrampur. The said Institution is run and maintained by the U.P. Basic Education Board. The petitioner's wife namely, Smt. Renu Devi is working as Lecturer in Hindi in Janta Inter College Paharpur, Sirathu, Kaushambi. The said Institution is a government aided but privately managed and does not hold the transferable post. The distance between Kaushambi and Balrampur is 500 Km. and above. 
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that his claim may be considered on sympathetic ground of placing the husband and wife together at one place. Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 provides that inter district transfer is possible only upon the request of the particular teacher.� 
Since the wife of the petitioner is at Kaushambi, it would be appropriate to direct Secretary, Basic Education Board U.P. at Allahabad to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, if it is found that the Secretary, Basic Education Board is not the competent authority, he shall forward the same to consider the claim of the petitioner before appropriate authority. 
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 

Ashish Tripathi 


 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...