दूरस्थ विधि से बी.एड. करने वालों को इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने दी राहत

      • टीईट-2011 में दूरस्थ विधि से बी.एड. करने वालों
        को शामिल नहीं किया गया था
    •  हाईकोर्ट ने प्रोविजन रूप में  परीक्षा देने वाले इन
      अभ्यर्थियों का रिजल्ट जारी करने का आदेश दिया है
    इलाहाबाद | इग्नू और राजर्षि टंडन मुक्त  विश्वविद्यालय से  दूरस्थ विधि से बी.एड. करने वालों को हाईकोर्ट ने  बड़ी राहत दी है | जस्टिस नाहिद  आरा  और  जस्टिस  सुशील हरकौली  तीन जनवरी  के अपने  आदेश में प्रोविजन रूप में टीईटी की परीक्षा देने   वाले इन अभ्यर्थियों का रिजल्ट जारी करने का आदेश दिया है |

    दरअसल प्रदेश   में पहली  बार   नवम्बर  2011 में आयोजित  शिक्षक
    पात्रता परीक्षा में दूरस्थ  विधि से  बी.एड. करने वालों को शामिल नहीं किया    गया   था |   टीईटी  में   शामिल  किए   जाने    की   मांग  को  लेकर   मुक्त विश्वविद्यालयों  से  बी.एड.  करने  वाले  अभ्यर्थियों ने
    हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दायर कर दी थी |

    बेंच ने याचिका ख़ारिज कर दी थी कि  अभ्यर्थी  पहले  से नौकरी  में है
    और उन्हें टीईटी देने की जरुरत नहीं  है | जबकि अभ्यर्थियों का कहना
    था कि वे जो नौकरी कर रहे हैं वो स्थाई नहीं है और सरकारी  स्कूल में 
    शिक्षक बनने के लिए उन्हें भी टीईटी में शामिल किया जाए |

    एनसीटीई की  ओर से हाईकोर्ट में दाखिल प्रति-शपथपत्र में ये स्वीकार किया गया  है कि   बी.एड.   द्विवर्षीय दूरस्थ पाठ्यक्रम से पास करने वाले अभ्यर्थियों को भी शिक्षक भर्ती में टीईटी पास करना जरुरी है |
    दूरस्थ विधि से बी.एड. करने वालों को इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने दी राहत Reviewed by Brijesh Shrivastava on 10:31 AM Rating: 5


    Brijesh Shrivastava said...

    Court No. - 33

    Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2296 of 2011

    Petitioner :- Mithai Lal And Others
    Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
    Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastava
    Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kr. Singh,R.A. Akhtar

    Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.
    Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
    We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for N.C.T.E. and the learned State Counsel.
    Candidates who had done their B.Ed. course through distance learning mode were considered eligible by the N.C.T.E. to take the T.E.T. Examination but the State Government was not permitting the same.� The writ petition was filed by the appellants seeking permission to appear in the T.E.T. Examination. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on the ground that because of the current employment of the appellants they were exempted and therefore not required to take the T.E.T. examination.
    In this appeal an interim order was passed permitting the appellants to provisionally appear in the T.E.T. examination.
    Therefore, the above two questions arise for adjudication after exchange of pleadings in this appeal.�
    All parties including the appellants are agreed that the nature of current employment was not such as would exempt the appellants from the T.E.T. Examination. Therefore, the issue does not survive.
    �So far as, the distinction between a normal classroom mode and distance learning mode is concerned that controversy has also been laid to rest by the decision of this Court in the case of Gyanendra Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and others being Special Appeal No. 1271 of 2007 decided on 03.10.2007.� It has been laid down by this Court that there is no difference between the two modes of acquiring the B.Ed. qualification.�
    In the circumstances, the appeal is finally allowed.� The appellants result of the T.E.T. Examination in which the appellants had appeared provisionally would be declared and relevant mark-sheet/certificate issued forthwith, treating the provisional appearance to be regular appearance.
    Order Date :- 3.1.2013
    (Naheed Ara Moonis,J.) � � (Sushil Harkauli,J.)

    Brijesh Shrivastava said...

    इसी तारीख़ में एक अन्य याचिका जो कला और विज्ञान को भर्ती में वर्गीकृत करने के लिए की गई थी ,ख़ारिज कर दी गई है-
    Court No. - 30

    Case :- WRIT - A No. - 68599 of 2012

    Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav And Another
    Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
    Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Sinha,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi
    Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh

    Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
    Petitioners have approached this Court for issuing writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Paragraph No. 10 (2) of the Government Order dated 05.12.2012 which treats all the post of Prasikshu Shikshak into one category (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition).
    Petitioners submit that while proceeding to make selection on the post of Prasikshu Shikshak classification ought to have been made by dividing Prasikshu Shikshak in two categories i.e. in the category of Arts and in the category of Science to the extent of 50% each. Petitioners have submitted division of posts in Arts and Science category are relevant and there has been classification in the said direction and in view of this by treating all the posts as one, without any division of the posts into Arts and Science category the advertisement in question is bad.
    In pith and substance petitioners are questioning the validity of the policy decision, which has been so taken by the State Government under Government Order dated 5th December, 2012 wherein the State Government in its wisdom has not chosen to classify and divide the posts in Arts and Science category and to the contrary has proceeded to invite applications from all those candidates, who have passed the B.Ed. examination and has further passed the TET examination.�
    Once the State Government in its wisdom has chosen not to make any classification based on Arts category and Science category and has proceeded to make selection appointment on the post of Prasikshu Shikshak by treating them into once category, then this Court cannot come to rescue or reprieve of the petitioners, once same is in the realm of policy decision.
    Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.
    Order Date :- 3.1.2013

    Contact Form


    Email *

    Message *

    Powered by Blogger.