UPTET-टीईटी मामले की सुनवाई 16 को
जाब्यू, इलाहाबाद : प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में टीईटी की अनिवार्यता मुद्दे पर गठित इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की पूर्ण पीठ ने राज्य सरकार व याची अधिवक्ताओं से 12 अप्रैल तक लिखित बहस दाखिल करने की छूट दी है। मामले की सुनवाई की अगली तिथि 16 अप्रैल नियत की गयी है।
शिव कुमार शर्मा की याचिका पर संदर्भित विधि प्रश्नों की सुनवाई न्यायमूर्ति सुनील अम्बवानी, न्यायमूर्ति एपी शाही तथा न्यायमूर्ति पीकेएस बघेल की तीन सदस्यीय पूर्ण पीठ कर रही है। कोर्ट के समक्ष प्रश्न यह है कि सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति बिना टीईटी पास किये हो सकती है या नहीं। बीएड डिग्रीधारी को भी नियुक्ति का अवसर मिलेगा या नहीं तथा नियुक्ति मानक क्या क्वालिटी मार्क होगा या उसमें टीईटी के अंक भी शामिल होंगे। इस पर फैसले के बाद 72 हजार से अधिक अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति का रास्ता खुल सकेगा।
news source-dainik jagran
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPTET-non tet BEd. case
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12908 of 2013
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Bhushan,Adarsh Bhushan,Rahul Agrawal
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhter,R.B.Yadav
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The Vakalatnama filed by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh on behalf of respondent no.3 is
taken on record.
The Full Bench has been constituted by the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
dated 14.3.2013 for deciding the reference made on 8.3.2013 in Writ Petition
No.12908 of 2013.
We have heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, Shri Arvind Srivastava, Shri Ashok Khare,
Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Shri C.B. Yadav, Additional Advocate General
appears for the State of UP. Shri R.A. Akhtar appears for National Council for
Teachers Education. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted
by Shri Krishna Agarwal appear for the Central Government.
After giving an opportunity of preliminary hearing to the parties, we are of the view
that following questions arise for consideration by the Full Bench:-
"a) What does the phrase "minimum qualifications" occurring in Section 23 (1) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the
'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and its insistence
by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.08.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to
the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?
b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE
under Section 23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not
undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant
Teachers? What is the significance of the words "shall also be eligible for appointment for ClassI to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six
months special programme in elementary education"?
c) Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others vs.
State of UP and others 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?
List on 16.4.2013 at 10.00 AM. The parties will file written arguments with
supporting documents by 12.4.2013.
Order Date :- 3.4.2013
RKP
जाब्यू, इलाहाबाद : प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक अध्यापकों की भर्ती में टीईटी की अनिवार्यता मुद्दे पर गठित इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की पूर्ण पीठ ने राज्य सरकार व याची अधिवक्ताओं से 12 अप्रैल तक लिखित बहस दाखिल करने की छूट दी है। मामले की सुनवाई की अगली तिथि 16 अप्रैल नियत की गयी है।
शिव कुमार शर्मा की याचिका पर संदर्भित विधि प्रश्नों की सुनवाई न्यायमूर्ति सुनील अम्बवानी, न्यायमूर्ति एपी शाही तथा न्यायमूर्ति पीकेएस बघेल की तीन सदस्यीय पूर्ण पीठ कर रही है। कोर्ट के समक्ष प्रश्न यह है कि सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति बिना टीईटी पास किये हो सकती है या नहीं। बीएड डिग्रीधारी को भी नियुक्ति का अवसर मिलेगा या नहीं तथा नियुक्ति मानक क्या क्वालिटी मार्क होगा या उसमें टीईटी के अंक भी शामिल होंगे। इस पर फैसले के बाद 72 हजार से अधिक अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति का रास्ता खुल सकेगा।
news source-dainik jagran
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPTET-non tet BEd. case
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12908 of 2013
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Bhushan,Adarsh Bhushan,Rahul Agrawal
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhter,R.B.Yadav
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The Vakalatnama filed by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh on behalf of respondent no.3 is
taken on record.
The Full Bench has been constituted by the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
dated 14.3.2013 for deciding the reference made on 8.3.2013 in Writ Petition
No.12908 of 2013.
We have heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, Shri Arvind Srivastava, Shri Ashok Khare,
Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Shri C.B. Yadav, Additional Advocate General
appears for the State of UP. Shri R.A. Akhtar appears for National Council for
Teachers Education. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted
by Shri Krishna Agarwal appear for the Central Government.
After giving an opportunity of preliminary hearing to the parties, we are of the view
that following questions arise for consideration by the Full Bench:-
"a) What does the phrase "minimum qualifications" occurring in Section 23 (1) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the
'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and its insistence
by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.08.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to
the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?
b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE
under Section 23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not
undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant
Teachers? What is the significance of the words "shall also be eligible for appointment for ClassI to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six
months special programme in elementary education"?
c) Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others vs.
State of UP and others 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?
List on 16.4.2013 at 10.00 AM. The parties will file written arguments with
supporting documents by 12.4.2013.
Order Date :- 3.4.2013
RKP
No comments:
Post a Comment