Showing posts with label UPTET 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UPTET 2013. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - - सरकार बताये की यू पी टी ई टी 2013 में मानदंडों का पालन क्यों गया , उर्दू व् भाषा शिक्षकों को निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - 



सरकार बताये की यू पी टी ई टी 2013 में मानदंडों का पालन क्यों  गया , उर्दू व् भाषा शिक्षकों को निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना 





 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
 

Monday, February 15, 2016

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Wrong Question Problem in UPTET 2013, Court Granted to Permission to Apply Online-

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Wrong Question Problem in UPTET 2013, Court Granted to Permission to Apply Online



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 7 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4550 of 2016 

Petitioner :- Ummatuz Zehra 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rijwan Ali Akhtar 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh 

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. 
The petitioner had applied online in Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test-2013 (Primary Language) under the General category. In the examination, she was supplied Question Booklet No. 952346 of Question Booklet Series 'B'. According to the petitioner, there were 90 multiple choice type questions in the said question booklet and each question was assigned 1 (one) mark. 
It is stated that after the examination it was found that some of the answers of Question Booklet Series 'A', 'B' and 'C' were wrong, with the result that the marks were incorrectly allotted to the candidates. 
This matter came to be considered by this Court at Lucknow Bench in the case of Kadeer Ahmad Khan & others v. State of U.P. and another, Misc. Single No. 6560 of 2013. In the said case, the Court was satisfied that Question No. 57 of 'C' series and Question No. 39 of 'B' series have been wrongly answered by the key of the respondents. Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order on 24th October, 2013 that the petitioners therein shall be treated as eligible in T.E.T. Examination by giving one mark for the aforesaid questions. The said writ petition has been allowed by this Court on 07th July, 2014 with the following observations: 
"...As per counter-affidavit, answers 5, 8, 7 and 47 of 'A' series, 29, 2, 39 and 65 of 'B' series, 23, 26, 57 and 89 of 'C' series and 11, 19, 49, and 78 of 'D' series, were wrongly shown and evaluated, while answers of rest of the questions were correct one question was wrongly printed. This has affected the result materially. 
It is submitted that on account of wrong valuation, the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful marring their chance of employment. Counter-affidavit has been filed annexing therewith an order issued by Secretary Smt. Neena Srivastava, Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority. In the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that some mistakes did occur, as such opinion of subject experts was sought and after seeking opinion of subject experts result has been altered accordingly. Copy of the letter written by Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority dated 28.10.2013 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. 
Accordingly, four questions were found to be wrongly evaluated and one question was wrongly put in the paper. Since subject expert has now clarified the position as contained in the letter of Secretary, Examining Body, petitioners have made out a case for interference. 
In view of the above discussions, I direct the respondent no. 2 to declare the petitioners' result in accordance with the opinion given by subject experts as mentioned in the letter dated 28.10.2013, within two weeks from today. 
Both the writ petitions stand allowed."� 
It is stated that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the said judgment as the petitioner was supplied Question Booklet Series 'B', wherein two questions, being Question Nos. 39 and 65 were wrongly evaluated. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to some other orders of this Court passed in the similar facts. 
Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that submission of online application for Urdu teacher is commencing from 05th February, 2016 and since the petitioner has been declared ineligible by one mark and in case her mark is increased in the light of the judgment of this Court, referred above, the petitioner would be eligible to submit her online form on 05th February, 2016. 
The petitioner states that she has made a recent representation to the respondent no. 4 on 27th January, 2016 ventilating her grievance but with no result. 
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.� 
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner's grievance be considered by the respondent no. 4 in the light of the judgment of Writ Petition No. 6560 of 2013 (supra). 
Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner is permitted to submit her online application form on 05th February, 2016 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). A further direction is issued to respondent no. 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6560 of 2013 (supra) within two weeks. The order so passed shall be placed before this Court on the next date of listing. 
Put up this case on 26th February, 2016 in the additional cause list. 
Order Date :- 2.2.2016 
SKT/- 


 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
 

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/-


Tuesday, April 1, 2014

UPTET 2014 : VIOLATION OF NCTE GUIDELINES

UPTET 2014 : VIOLATION OF NCTE GUIDELINES

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5317 of 2014

Petitioner :- Mohd. Amil
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead Chairman, N.C.T.E, New Delhi as as respondent no. 4 in the array of parties forthwith.� He shall also serve a copy of the writ petition upon Shri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, sought quashing of the paragraphs no. 2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the G.O. dated 17.4.2013 issued by the State Government with regard to the conduct of U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2013 for Urdu language as it does not contain the questions in regard to second language and mathematics and environmental studies and is in violation of N.C.T.E. Guidelines dated 11.2011.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.
The matter requires consideration.
All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.
List after four weeks.
When the case is next listed the name of Shri R.A. Akhtar be shown in the cause list as counsel� for the respondent.
Order Date :- 12.2.2014
o.k.
******************
OTHER UPTET 2014 related cases :

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10612 of 2014

Petitioner :- Priyanka Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.S. Baghel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to correct the photograph of the petitioner in the Certificate issued to the petitioner of U.P.T.E.T., 2013 for 'Uchcha Prathmik (Bhasha)'.
Leanred Standing Counsel shall produce original record including E-Application and photograph which may have been attached thereto as well as any photograph available with regard to the the petitioner's application and the certificate.
Put up on 25.2.2014.� �
Order Date :- 19.2.2014
Asha 

**********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14260 of 2014

Petitioner :- Bilal Ahmad And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Y.S. Bohra

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
I have heard Sri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.S.Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.�
The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the Adeeb course from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh as equivalent to High School� and further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in the Primary School on the basis of qualification for participating in U.P.T.E.T., 2013.
According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 had passed Adeeb Examination in 1987 and also Molim-E-Urdu in 1996 and petitioner no.2 had passed Adeeb Examination in 1985 and also Molim-E-Urdu in 1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of the Lucknow bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 7102 (M/S) of 2013 Mohd. Naseem Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 16.12.2013 alongwith other connected matters wherein this Court has held that the courses of Adeeb, Fazil, Maulvi and Munsi shall be taken as equivalent to High School. This Court has held as under:-
"Writ petitions are allowed.
The opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioners to participate in the ongoing counselling for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher ( Urdu) being carried out by the State as per the advertisement mentioned in the year 2013 immediately. Courses of Adeeb, Fazil, Maulvi and Munsi as detailed aforesaid shall be taken as equivalent to High School."

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that this legal position has� already been settled in the case of Mohd.Naseem.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.4,� the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for being� allowed to appear in the counseling for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Primary School within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
It is made clear that respondent will be at liberty to� examine the veracity and genuineness of the documents/certificates filed by the petitioner.�
Order Date :- 6.3.2014
Asha  


******************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3682 of 2014

Petitioner :- Suman Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking� correction in the Caste Category of� petitioner by mentioning O.B.C. in pace of General in Upper Primary� Language Examination-UPTET-2013� and placed the petitioner in merit list of OBC Candidates.
According to the petitioner, she was already in possession� of the caste certificate of OBC, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
I have heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai holding brief of Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel with a direction to the respondent no.2, Secretary of Examinations Controller Authority (Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari) Allenganj, Allahabad, U.P. to consider the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by his office.
Order Date :- 21.1.2014
N Tiwari 

 ****************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4964 of 2014

Petitioner :- Faisal Naseem And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.K. Yadav

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award them two marks in respect of multiple choice questions no. 18 and 26 of question book let no. 957839 (petitioner no.1) and question book let no. 957783 (petitioner no.2) of 'C' Series of UP TET 2013 (Primary Language) Examination and thereafter declare petitioners qualified in U.P. T.E.T. 2013 (Primary language).
Heard Shri B.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel representing respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri A.K.Yadav, learned counsel representing respondents no. 3.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no. 2-The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allanganj, Allahabad that if the petitioners prefer a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within 10 days from today before the respondent no. 2 raising all their grievances which they have raised in this writ petition, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a further period of one month.
Order Date :- 7.2.2014
N Tiwari 

*******************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4956 of 2014

Petitioner :- Majid Ali Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.K. Yadav

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award him two marks in respect of multiple choice questions no. 6 and 19 of question book let no. 957872 of "D" Series of UP TET 2013 (Primary Language) Examination and thereafter declare his result of U.P. T.E.T. 2013 (Primary language).
I have heard Shri B.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel representing respondents no. 3.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no. 2-The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allanganj, Allahabad that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within 10 days from today before the respondent no. 2 raising all his grievances which he has raised in this writ petition, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a further period of one month.
Order Date :- 7.2.2014
N Tiwari
 
 

 ***********************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16005 of 2014

Petitioner :- Rakesh Babu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Nath Maury,B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Raj Nath Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to provide him the marksheet of U.P.T.E.T.-2013.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2, the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allenganj Allahabad to provide the result of the U.P.T.E.T.-2013 (Primary Level) to the petitioner� within a period of� two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
Order Date :- 13.3.2014
Asha  

***********************
 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17041 of 2014

Petitioner :- Rita Rani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to evaluate the O.M.R. Sheet of petitioner appeared in U.P.T.E.T., 2013-14� Primary Level treating her Language Attempted option Sanskrit.
According to the petitioner, in her application form she has filled Sanskrit as subject. According to her,� in O.M.R. Sheet she has not filled Language Attempted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in writ petition� no.12698 of 2014, Shamasul Eslam vs. State of U.P. and others where the petitioner had failed to� mention Question Booklet Number in the O.M.R.Sheet. Relying upon� a decision of Division Bench� of this Court in the case of� Archana Rastogi (Km.) V. State of U.P. and Others reported in [2012 (3) ADJ 219 (DB)]� the Court had directed to the respondent to reconsider the matter of the petitioner in the light of the documents on record.
In my opinion, the said judgments have no application to the facts of the case inasmuch as� in O.M.R. Sheet the petitioner has failed to fill up 'Language Attempted' column itself. Therefore, no direction can be given to re-evaluate O.M.R. sheet of the petitioner treating the same for the subject Language Attempted Sanskrit.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.3.2014
Asha 

*******************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10349 of 2014

Petitioner :- Musharraf Raza Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Nath Maurya,B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Raj Nath Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents to award 3 marks to the petitioner in respect of� multiple choice questions No. 2, 24 and 29 of Question Booklet No. 757874 of "B" Series of U.P. TET 2013 (Primary Language) and to declare petitioner qualified in U.P. T.E.T., 2013 (Primary Language).
All the respondents shall counter affidavit within three weeks. List thereafter.
Connect this writ petition with Writ Petition No. 10347 of 2014 (Jamshed Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another).
Order Date :- 18.2.2014
Arun K. Singh 

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

UPTET : टीईटी में 82 नंबर पाने वाले भी होंगे पास

UPTET : टीईटी में 82 नंबर पाने वाले भी होंगे पास

Breaking News 72825 Primary Teacher aur 29334 Junior High School Teacher Kee Bhrtee Aur  Late Hone Kee Sambhaavnaa Badee -





Kal Hee Allahabad High Court Ka Order Daala Thaa Jismen Allahabad Highcourt ne 83 se Ek Number Kam Ko Fail Hee Maaana Thaa, 
Saath Hee Kaha Thaa Kee NCTE Ke Pass Jao, NCTE se Clarification Lo Ki NCTE Ka Kya Kehana Hai Rounding of Marks (54.67) Ke Baare Mein.

 Aaj News Aa Gayee Hai Kee Arakshit Kshrennee Ke Log 150 mein se 82 Number Par Bhee Pass Hain.

Is Prakaar UPTET 2011 aur UPTET 2013 Mein Pass Hone Vaale Hazaron Candidate Ko Rahat Mil Jayegee Aur Ve Bhee UPTET Pass Kehlayaenge.

72825 aur 29334 Padon keee Bhrtee Mein Deree Ho Saktee Hai, Aur Pichlee Bhrteeyon Mein Bhee Thodee Mushkil Hogee

 एनसीटीई ने जारी किया आदेश
राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद (एनसीटीई) ने टीईटी एवं सीटीईटी में आरक्षित श्रेणी में 150 में से 82 अंक पाने वाले अभ्यर्थी भी पास माने जाएंगे। इस बारे एनसीटीई ने प्रदेश बेसिक एवं माध्यमिक शिक्षा सचिव को भेजे अलग-अलग पत्र में टीईटी में आरक्षित कोटे के अभ्यर्थियों को 150 में से 82 अंक मिलने पर भी सफल घोषित करने को कहा है।यूपीटीईटी में शामिल आरक्षित वर्ग के अभ्यर्थी भागीरथी सिंहने हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल कर 150 में 82 अंक मिलने पर टीईटी में सफल घोषित करने की मांग की थी। कोर्ट के निर्णय के आधार पर एनसीटीई ने सीटीईटी एवं टीईटी में आरक्षित वर्ग में 82 अंक अर्थात 54.67 फीसदी अंक पाने पर भी सफल घोषित करने का आदेश जारी किया। कोर्ट और एनसीटीई ने 54.67 फीसदी को पूर्णांक जारी करते हुए 55 फीसदी मान लिया है।



Monday, January 13, 2014

UPTET Candidates Who Obtained 82 Marks out of 150 Demanded to Declare Them Pass, Petition Dismissed

 Candidates Who Obtained 82 Marks out of 150 Demanded to Declare Them Pass, Petition Dismissed


यू पी टी ई टी में 150 में से 82 मार्क्स आये तो फेल

काफी सारे आरक्षित वर्ग के केंडीडेट्स जिनके यू पी टी ई टी में १५० में से ८२ मार्क्स आये और जिनको फेल करार दिया गया , उन्होंने इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट में उनको उत्तीर्ण करार देने की याचिका दायर की और कहा कि उनके  54.67 प्रतिशत मार्क्स हैं , जिसको राउंडिंग करने पर 55 प्रतिशत मार्क्स होते हैं और  इसलिए उनको उत्तीर्ण करार दिया जाना चाहिए।
कोर्ट ने याचिका ख़ारिज कर दी और टी ई टी उत्तीर्णांक में कोई राहत  नहीं दी  और साथ ही कहा की वे अपनी प्रार्थना एन सी टी ई को दे सकते हैं


 See Allahabad Highcourt Decision :-

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49089 of 2013

Petitioner :- Virendra Panwar And 8 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secry. Basic And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A.Akhtar

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The petitioners, who belong to OBC/SC Category appeared at the Teacher Eligibility Test-2011/13. It is stated that the 2011 result was declared on 25th November, 2011 while that of the 2013 result was declared on 13th August, 2013. It is further stated that the Teachers Eligibility Test is of 150 marks and the advertisement mentions that those candidates would be treated as eligible who have secured 60% marks but for SC/ST/OBC category, this percentage has been reduced to 55%. The petitioners claim that as they have obtained 82 marks out of 150 marks which is 54.67% they should be treated as having obtained 55%.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 have submitted that the controversy involved in this petition has been decided against the petitioners by this Court in Writ Petition No.383 of 2013 (Kamta Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Thru Special Secretary & Ors.) which was dismissed on 7th January, 2013 and Writ Petition No.30875 of 2013 (Jaswant Saini & 3 Ors, Vs. Basic Shiksha Adhikari & 5 Ors.) which was decided on 29th May, 2013.
In the present petition, some of the petitioners namely petitioner Nos. 6 to 9 appeared at the 2011-Examination. This petition, at their behest has been filed belatedly and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However, even with respect to petitioner Nos.1 to 5, the matter stands concluded against the petitioners in view of the decision of this Court in Kamta Prasad (supra) wherein after relying upon earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, the Court observed:-
"Accepted position is that petitioner has secured 54.67% marks as he has secured 82 marks in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test out of 150 marks and petitioner's submission is that from the total number of 150 questions, it is an impossibility for a candidate to secure 55% marks as no candidate can achieve 82.5 marks in the said examination. Petitioner has further proceeded to mention that either a candidate will secure 82 marks which would mean 54.67% marks or 83 marks which would mean 55.33% marks and in view of this securing 55% marks by a candidate i.e. 82.5 is an impossibility. Petitioner in this background has contended that 54.67% marks should be rounded up and treated as 55% marks.
Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that a practically impossible situation has been created as awarding of 82.5 marks which is equal to 55% marks is an impossibility and in view of this writ petition deserves to be allowed by considering 54.67 marks as 55%.
............................
The requirement under law is of having 55% marks by a candidate and in view of this a candidate who has secured less than 55% marks i.e. less than 82.5 marks in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, cannot be treated as eligible by any means and those candidates who have got less than 55% on plain mathematical calculation have been treated to be ineligible, accordingly, theory as has been suggested by petitioner that as it would be an act of impossibility cannot be accepted.
Consequently no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner, and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed."
In Jaswant Saini & 3 Ors. (supra) the Court also observed as follows:-
"I am not inclined to issue any mandamus as prayed for in view of the fact that the existing norms clearly require the possession of 55% or more marks in relation to the reserved category candidates. The score of 82 out of 150 does not amount to 55% or more and the principles of rounding off will not be available in view of the fact that the prescription in clause 9 of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 clearly recites, the minimum percentage or more as the score, which has to be obtained by a candidate. In such circumstances, less than 55% is not contemplated therein.
Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to records with liberty to the petitioners to approach the National Council for Teacher Education for any such clarification."
Thus, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgments, this petition is dismissed but with liberty to petitioner Nos.1 to 5 to approach the National Council for Teacher Education for any such clarification.
Order Date :- 11.9.2013
NSC

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2790453

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Allahabad HC : No Relief to Candidate for Incorrect Filling of OMR Sheet in UPTET 2013

Allahabad HC : No Relief to Candidate for Incorrect Filling of OMR Sheet in UPTET 2013

Teacher Recruitment News


Candidate ne OMR Sheet Mein Question Booklet Number Nahin Bhara, Aur Uska Copy Check nahin Huee, Result Ruk Gaya

Uske Baad candidate ne court ka darwaja khatkhataya, Court ne Koee Rahat / Relief Nahin Diya.
Yachee ko Court ne Kaha ki Vhe Ajaad Hain Kisee Sahee  Manch / Forum Par Apnee Baat Rakhne Ke Liye.



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. - 5
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 8096 of 2013
Petitioner :- Mohd. Rafeeq Ansari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.,Thru. Secretary, Basic Education & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Katyayan Mishra,Anuj Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel.
For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to respondent no. 2, hence notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition has been filed seeking suitable order or direction for declaration of result of the petitioner for Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) Examination, 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for T.E.T. Examination and had filled up the form. He was allotted Roll No. 3930100063. In the form he had clearly mentioned in the Language Column 'Urdu', however, while appearing in the examination he had failed to fill up the columns of language as well as booklet series which was given on the right side of OMR Sheet. The result of T.E.T. Examination, 2013 has been declared on 14.08.2013, however, the result of the petitioner has not been declared.
It is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances this Court vide order dated 25.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6339 (M/S) of 2013 has directed the authorities to declare the result in case the petitioner has failed to fill up the language column in the OMR Sheet.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand, submitted that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 6339 (M/S) of 2013 as the petitioner had not mentioned booklet series number in the OMR Sheet in addition to not mentioning of language in the language column.
It is submitted that the examination booklet contained different series having different sets of questions and unless the booklet series is specifically mentioned in the OMR Sheet, the same cannot be evaluated.
I have considered the submission made by parties' counsel.
It is the case of the petitioner that he had not filled up the OMR Sheet mentioning the language and booklet series number in the columns provided on the OMR Sheet.
In the case of Raisa Begum (Writ Petition No. 6339 (M/S) of 2013), the petitioner although had mentioned the language as 'Urdu' in the form submitted by her, however, she had not filled up the language column in the OMR Sheet. The Court finding it to be a bonafide human error had issued directions to the authorities to declare her result treating her language to be Urdu as mentioned by her in the form.�
In the present case, the petitioner was required to mention the booklet series number in the OMR Sheet in addition to giving information regarding language etc.
Since in the said examination there were different series of booklets provided to the candidates and the said booklets of each series contained different sets of questions as such unless a candidate specifically mentions the booklet series number clearly and properly, his/her OMR Sheet cannot be evaluated.
In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Raisa Begum (supra) on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance.
As such no direction as prayed by petitioner can be issued.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
However, petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievance before any appropriate forum in case he has any right under the relevant rules-regulations and Government Orders etc.

Order Date :- 11.12.2013
IrfanUddin

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2982165

Saturday, September 14, 2013

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION : RIGHT TO EDUCATION to FILL PRIMARY / UPPER PRIMARY POSTS IN UP


PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION : RIGHT TO EDUCATION to FILL PRIMARY / UPPER PRIMARY POSTS IN UP



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 


?Court No. - 32 

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 34647 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Tewari 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Ram Pandey 

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J. 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 
The petitioner is working as Asstt. Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Purvajagir Vikash Khand Kone, Distt. Mirzapur. 
By this writ petition filed in public interest he has prayed for directions to the respondent authorities to fulfill the mandate of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as well as the mandate of the 86th Constitutional Amendment inserting Art.21A by providing proportionate number of teachers in the Primary and Upper Primary Schools in Distt. Mirzapur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by indiscriminate posting and transfers for questionable reasons the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has created a situation in which a large number of schools are not having any teachers, whereas in some schools in urban areas on account of absorption/ transfer/ posting, more than sufficient number of teachers have been posted. 
It is admitted to the petitioner that there are large number of vacancies of teachers in Primary Schools on account of failure of the State Government to hold Teachers Eligibility Test, in time. There were large number of complaint in earlier Teachers Eligibility Test held by the State Government on which the State Government has taken a stand and amended the rules providing that any person, who has passed TET, if he is otherwise qualified is eligible to be appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Primary Schools and Upper Primary Schools. 
The prayers for posting proportionate number of teachers in all the schools is in public interest to protect the fundamental rights of children guaranteed under Art.21A of the Constitution of India as secured by the Act of 2009.� 
Let the respondents file counter affidavit giving number of teachers, posted in the schools at Mirzapur, giving details of the schools, number of students, number of sanctioned posts and the number of teachers posted on such posts. 
In the meantime, the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur will ensure that the teachers are posted in the Primary Schools and Upper Primary Schools in such numbers, that atleast one teacher is posted in every school, until regular appointments are made. 
List on 23rd July, 2013. 
Order Date :- 27.6.2013 
SP/ 

***************
This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only

Thursday, September 12, 2013

UPTET : टीईटी की अनिवार्यता पर केंद्र व यूपी सरकार से जवाब तलब


UPTET : टीईटी की अनिवार्यता पर केंद्र व यूपी सरकार से जवाब तलब




नई दिल्ली। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार की ओर से लागू किए गए टीचर एलिजेबिलटी टेस्ट (टीईटी) के खिलाफ दायर याचिका पर केंद्र व राज्य सरकार से जवाब तलब किया है। इस मुद्दे पर विशिष्ट बीटीसी में 2007-08 में उत्तीर्ण हुए अभ्यर्थियों ने सर्वोच्च अदालत का दरवाजा खटखटाया है।
सर्वोच्च अदालत से इन अभ्यर्थियों ने कहा है कि टीईटी को लागू किए जाने से पहले उनका कोर्स पूरा हो चुका था। लेकिन तब गैर-एनसीटीई संस्थानों से मान्यता प्राप्त डिग्रियां होने के आधार पर राज्य सरकार ने प्रशिक्षण से रोक दिया था। लेकिन सर्वोच्च अदालत ने अक्तूबर, 2010 में दिए फैसले में अभ्यर्थियों की बीएड डिग्रियों को सही करार दिया। हालांकि इससे पहले राज्य सरकार ने अगस्त, 2010 में टीईटी लागू कर दिया। अब प्रशिक्षण पूरा करने के बावजूद राज्य सरकार कह रही है कि टीईटी परीक्षा पास किए बगैर कोई नियुक्ति नहीं की जाएगी।
जस्टिस बीएस चौहान की अध्यक्षता वाली पीठ के समक्ष राम प्रकाश शर्मा समेत आठ याचिकाकर्ताओं की ओर से पेश हुए अधिवक्ता आरके सिंह ने तर्क दिया कि मेरे मुवक्किलों ने टीईटी लागू किए जाने से पहले विशिष्ट बीटीसी में सफलता हासिल की थी। लेकिन राज्य सरकार की ओर से डिग्रियों पर सवाल उठाए जाने के बाद प्रशिक्षण नहीं हो पाया। अब मेरे सभी मुवक्किलों समेत कई हजार लोगों का प्रशिक्षण पूरा हो चुका है। लेकिन राज्य सरकार अब इस पर आमादा है कि अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति के लिए इन सबके लिए भी टीईटी पास करना जरूरी है


Tuesday, September 10, 2013

UPTET 2013 / BTC : उर्दू डिग्री धारकों ने किया प्रदर्शन


UPTET 2013 / BTC : उर्दू डिग्री धारकों ने किया प्रदर्शन






लखनऊ  समाजवादी पार्टी द्वारा सहायक अध्यापक उर्दू के पदों पर निकाले गए विज्ञापन में सामान्य बीटीसी को शामिल करने के फैसले पर उर्दू डिग्री धारकों ने नाराजगी जताई है। सोमवार को उर्दू डिग्री धारकों ने मोअल्लिम-ए-उर्दू एसोसिएशन के बैनर तले विधान भवन के सामने प्रदर्शन किया। इस दौरान प्रदर्शनकारियों ने मुख्यमंत्री को संबोधित ज्ञापन जिला प्रशासन को सौंपा।
एसोसिएशन के प्रदेश अध्यक्ष डॉ. हेसामुद्दीन सिद्दीकी ने बताया कि बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री राम गोविंद चौधरी द्वारा अब तक आश्वासन दिया जाता रहा है कि सभी मोअल्लिम-ए-उर्दू डिग्री धाकरों की भर्ती बगैर टीईटी के कराई जाएगी। मगर, मौजूदा वक्त में लगभग पांच हजार मोअल्लिम-ए-उर्दू डिग्री धारक टीईटी उत्तीर्ण कर चुके हैं और 4 हजार 280 को उर्दू अध्यापक पद पर तैनात किया जा चुका है। अब इन पदों पर सामान्य बीटीसी प्रशिक्षकों को शामिल करके मोअल्लिमानों की उम्मीद पर पानी फेर दिया है


News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (10.9.13)