Author Topic: Supreme Court Judgement :Writ against Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is Dismiss  (Read 10380 times)

Gaurav Rathore

  • News Editor
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5331
  • Gender: Male
  • Australian Munda
    • View Profile
Supreme Court Judgement : Writ against Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is Dismissed And Weightge of Experience is Quashed, Petition Dismissed
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Teacher Eligibility Test is Compulsory , And Guest Teacher Experience weightage quashed ( A decision of Highcourt Punjab & Haryana Maintained )[/u]
[/b][/font]
1
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29755/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 06/04/2010 in CWP
No.13045/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
MAHENDER KUMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 24882 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for intervention and permission to file rejoinder
affidavit and with prayer for interim relief and office report)
with
I.A.No.1162 (Appln.for intervention)
SLP(C) NO. 24884 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of petitioner and office
report)
SLP(C) NO. 24883 of 2010
(With office report)
SLP(C) NO. 25010 of 2010
(With office report)
Date: 21/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
Mr.N.P.Midha, Adv.
Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta,A.O.R.(Not Present)
For Respondent(s) Mr.P.P.Rao,Sr.Adv.
For RR Nos.1 & 3 Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.
Mr.Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv.
For RR No.4 Mr.D.S.Chauhan, Adv.
Mr.Rajinder Juneja, Adv.
For RR No.2 Mr. John Mathew,Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
2
The IA No. 38 for deleting the name of petitoner no.
2852, i.e., Chaman S/o Dharamvir in SLP(C) No. 24884 of 2010 is
allowed in terms of the prayer.
These petitions are directed against order dated
06.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court whereby the exemption granted to the Guest Faculty (Lecturers / Teachers) from passing the requirement of School Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, 'STET') for the purpose of regular appointment to Group 'B' posts and the grant of weightage
of 24 marks in lieu of the experience gained by working as Guest
Faculty was quashed.
With a view to ensure that the education of students does not suffer due to non-availability of teachers the Government of Haryana, Department of Education framed policy for recruitment of
Guest Faculty. For this purpose detailed guidelines were issued on 18.9.2006. After one year and two months, the State Government issued instructions vide circular dated 17.11.2007 to all the concerned officers to stop engaging Teachers on the Guest Faculty basis. On 2.12.2008, the Government issued guidelines for temporary adjustment of displaced Guest Teachers by way of stop gap arrangement. By circular dated 2.3.2009, the Government amended
the terms and conditions enshrined in letters dated 29.11.2005, 16.12.2005 and 27.9.2006 for engaging the Teachers on Guest Faculty.

In furtherance of the requisition received from the concerned department, the Haryana Public Service Commission (for 3 short, 'the Commission') issued advertisement no. 3 which was published in newspapers on 18.6.2009 for recruitment of 1317
Temporary Lecturers (School Cadre), HES-II (Group-B) were as under:
"Essential Qualification:
1.Essential Qualifications for the Lecturers of all Subjects except Lecturer in Chemistry, History, Maths and Pol. Science:
(i)Post Graduate Degree in relevant subject from a recognized university alongwith at least 50% marks.
(ii) Certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test.
(iii) Matric with Hindi / Sanskrit."

The relaxation clauses contained in the advertisement did not provide for exemption to any class / category of candidates from passing STET. However, after 15 days of the publication of
advertisement, the Commission issued corrigendum dated 3.7.2009 incorporating therein the decision taken by the State Government to give exemption to the Guest Teachers from passing STET and age relaxation apart from giving additional 6 marks for six months' experience subject to the maximum of 24 marks. The relevant portions of the corrigendum are reproduced below:

"Besides as per the decision of the State Government the guest teachers applying for these posts will be given exemption from passing the School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) and age relaxation in the upper age limit in additional weightage for having served the department as guest teacher will be given as under:
"No weightage will given to a person who has served for less than six months.
For the six months experience 6% additional marks to be given and one percent additional will be given for every additional month of engagement subject to maximum 24 marks."

Necessary Stipulation:
In case the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court does not agree to the grant of relaxation to the guest teachers, the same will not be given to them at the time of final selection."
Respondent no. 2, viz., Ashok Kumar challenged the
corrigendum in Writ Petition No. 13045 of 2009 mainly on the ground
that the so-called policy decision taken by the State Government to
exempt the Teachers engaged as Guest Faculty from passing STET and
grant of weightage of additional marks is ultra vires the
provisions of the Haryana State Educational Lecturer School Cadre
(Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (for short, 'the Rules') and
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because that would amount to
indirect regularisation of the services of the Teachers who were
engaged as the Guest Faculty.
In the counter filed by the State Government the
exemption granted to the Guest Faculty from clearing the STET was
justified on the premise that such test had not been conducted in
the State for many years. The grant of weightage of additional
marks was also defended on the premise that the members of the
Guest Faculty had acquired sufficient experience by working as
Lecturers / Teachers.
The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the
policy framed by the State Government to recruitment to Guest
Faculty, the relevant provisions of the Rules, the orders passed in
Writ Petition Nos. 2743/2006, 387/2007 and 5289/2007 filed by
5
Teachers appointed as the Guest Faculty and observed:


"31. A reading of orders passed by this Court, as
referred to above, makes it very clear that entry of
guest faculty teachers was de-hors the regular
selection process. It was limited to few candidates.
All eligible candidates were not allowed to compete for
those posts. The nature of service was contractual.
However, despite knowing terms and conditions of their
appointment, the guest faculty teachers dragged the
State of Haryana into avoidable litigation and on
account of their action, even the process of selection
of regular teachers was delayed. If at this stage,
relaxation in age, exemption from passing STET and
weightage upto 24 marks towards experience gained as
guest faculty teachers is given to them, it would
amount to appointing those very candidates in regular
service, who, in the first instance, entered it through
a selection process which was not regular and open to
all. Obviously, it would mean a grave discrimination to
the other more deserving candidates. Most of the guest
faculty teachers have service of more than two years to
their credit, they are sure to get 24 marks at the time
of selection and by that process they are bound to
exclude others who are more meritorious from entering
in service. The grant of 24 marks in the marks obtained
by all the candidates, including the guest faculty
teachers, as per criteria, in a fiercely competitive
field with thousands of applicants would virtually rule
out non guest faculty candidates. This virtually
amounts to regularization of guest faculty teachers in
service, which was deprecated and proscribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra),
wherein it was held that persons, who got employment
without following a regular procedure and at times
enter through backdoor are not entitled to get
permanence in service."
We have heard Shri Shish Pal Laler, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State, learned counsel for the Commission and
learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and scrutinised the record.
It is not in dispute that the essential qualifications
enumerated in the advertisement issued by the Commission were in
6
consonance with the requirement of the Rules as amended vide
Notification dated 24.7.2008. In other words, the certificate of
having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test was an integral
part of the essential qualifications. Rule 17 of the Rules does
empower the State Government to relax any of the provisions of the
Rules with respect to any class or category of persons but the
exercise of power under that rule is hedged with the condition that
while granting relaxation, the State Government must record reasons
for doing so. Before the High Court, the State Government did not
produce any document to show that it had exercised power under Rule
17 and passed a reasoned order for granting exemption to the
Teachers engaged as the Guest Faculty from the requirement of
having qualified STET. Even before this Court, no such document
has been produced. Therefore, the High Court was right in taking
the view that the essential qualification prescribed under the
rules could not have been relaxed by issuing a corrigendum in the
advertisement issued by the Commission.
Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel relied upon the
judgment in K.V.Rajalakshmiah Setty and another vs. State of Mysore
and another (1967) 2 SCR 70 to show that one time ad hoc concession
given to teachers could be treated as legitimate and the exercise
of power by the Government does not result in violation of Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
We have carefully gone through the judgment but do not
find any proposition of legality that a qualification prescribed
under the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be
7
relaxed simply by issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued
by the Commission.
Insofar as the grant of weightage of additional marks is
concerned, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that
this was an indirect methodology adopted by the State to ensure
regularisation of the Guest Faculty Teachers who had earlier failed
to convince the High Court to issue a mandamus to the State Government to frame a policy for regularisation of their services.
In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the special leave petitions,
all other pending I.As. are disposed of as having become
infructuous.

(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 08:21:21 PM by G.Rathore »

Gaurav Rathore

  • News Editor
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5331
  • Gender: Male
  • Australian Munda
    • View Profile
                                   1

ITEM NO.55                 COURT NO.6               SECTION IVB

              S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29755/2010

(From the judgement and order           dated 06/04/2010 in CWP
No.13045/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

MAHENDER KUMAR & ORS.                                 Petitioner(s)
                 VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 24882 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for intervention and permission to file rejoinder
affidavit and with prayer for interim relief and office report)
with
I.A.No.1162 (Appln.for intervention)
SLP(C) NO. 24884 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of petitioner and office
report)
SLP(C) NO. 24883 of 2010
(With office report)
SLP(C) NO. 25010 of 2010
(With office report)

Date: 21/02/2012    These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s)      Mr.Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
                       Mr.N.P.Midha, Adv.
                       Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta,A.O.R.(Not Present)

For Respondent(s)      Mr.P.P.Rao,Sr.Adv.
For RR Nos.1 & 3       Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.
                       Mr.Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv.

For RR No.4            Mr.D.S.Chauhan, Adv.
                       Mr.Rajinder Juneja, Adv.

For RR No.2            Mr. John Mathew,Adv.

                       Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.


             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R
                                               2

           The IA No. 38 for deleting the name of petitoner no.

2852, i.e., Chaman S/o Dharamvir in SLP(C) No. 24884 of 2010 is

allowed in terms of the prayer.

           These       petitions         are       directed     against    order        dated

06.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana

High   Court    whereby    the     exemption        granted    to   the   Guest      Faculty

(Lecturers     /     Teachers)    from     passing      the    requirement      of    School

Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, 'STET') for the purpose of

regular appointment to Group 'B' posts and the grant of weightage

of 24 marks in lieu of the experience gained by working as Guest

Faculty was quashed.

           With a view to ensure that the education of students does

not suffer due to non-availability of teachers the Government of

Haryana, Department of Education framed policy for recruitment of

Guest Faculty. For this purpose detailed guidelines were issued on

18.9.2006. After one year and two months, the State Government

issued   instructions       vide    circular         dated    17.11.2007    to    all    the

concerned officers to stop engaging Teachers on the Guest Faculty

basis. On 2.12.2008, the Government issued guidelines for temporary

adjustment      of    displaced     Guest          Teachers    by   way    of    stop    gap

arrangement.         By circular dated 2.3.2009, the Government amended

the terms and conditions enshrined in letters dated 29.11.2005,

16.12.2005      and    27.9.2006     for       engaging       the   Teachers     on     Guest

Faculty.

           In      furtherance      of    the       requisition     received     from     the

concerned department, the Haryana Public Service Commission (for
                                         3

short,   'the     Commission')   issued      advertisement     no.     3    which   was

published    in    newspapers    on    18.6.2009      for   recruitment      of     1317

Temporary Lecturers (School Cadre), HES-II (Group-B) were as under:



    "Essential Qualification:

    1.Essential Qualifications for the Lecturers of all
    Subjects except Lecturer in Chemistry, History, Maths
    and Pol. Science:

    (i)Post Graduate Degree in relevant subject from                         a
    recognized university alongwith at least 50% marks.

    (ii)Certificate of having qualified School Teacher's
    Eligibility Test.

    (iii)Matric with Hindi / Sanskrit."


            The relaxation clauses contained in the advertisement did

not provide for exemption to any class / category of candidates

from passing STET. However, after 15 days of the publication of

advertisement,      the   Commission    issued     corrigendum       dated   3.7.2009

incorporating therein the decision taken by the State Government to

give exemption to the Guest Teachers from passing STET and age

relaxation apart from giving additional 6 marks for six months'

experience      subject   to   the    maximum    of   24    marks.    The    relevant

portions of the corrigendum are reproduced below:



    "Besides as per the decision of the State Government
    the guest teachers applying for these posts will be
    given exemption from passing the School Teachers
    Eligibility Test (STET) and age relaxation in the upper
    age limit in additional weightage for having served the
    department as guest teacher will be given as under:

            "No weightage will given to a person                 who       has
            served for less than six months. For                 the       six
                                             4

              months experience 6% additional marks to be given
              and one percent additional will be given for every
              additional month of engagement subject to maximum
              24 marks."

       Necessary Stipulation:
       In case the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court does
       not agree to the grant of relaxation to the guest
       teachers, the same will not be given to them at the
       time of final selection."

              Respondent       no.   2,    viz.,      Ashok    Kumar     challenged       the

corrigendum in Writ Petition No. 13045 of 2009 mainly on the ground

that the so-called policy decision taken by the State Government to

exempt the Teachers engaged as Guest Faculty from passing STET and

grant    of    weightage        of   additional       marks    is      ultra    vires     the

provisions of the Haryana State Educational Lecturer School Cadre

(Group    'C')     Service      Rules,    1998   (for    short,     'the       Rules')    and

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because that would amount to

indirect regularisation of the services of the Teachers who were

engaged as the Guest Faculty.

              In    the   counter        filed   by    the     State     Government       the

exemption granted to the Guest Faculty from clearing the STET was

justified on the premise that such test had not been conducted in

the State for many years. The grant of weightage of additional

marks was also defended on the premise that the members of the

Guest    Faculty had        acquired sufficient experience by working as

Lecturers /        Teachers.

              The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the

policy   framed      by   the    State    Government     to    recruitment        to    Guest

Faculty, the relevant provisions of the Rules, the orders passed in

Writ    Petition     Nos.    2743/2006,      387/2007        and   5289/2007      filed    by
                                      5

Teachers appointed as the Guest Faculty and observed:



    "31. A reading of orders passed by this Court, as
    referred to above, makes it very clear that entry of
    guest   faculty  teachers   was  de-hors   the  regular
    selection process. It was limited to few candidates.
    All eligible candidates were not allowed to compete for
    those posts. The nature of service was contractual.
    However, despite knowing terms and conditions of their
    appointment, the guest faculty teachers dragged the
    State of Haryana into avoidable litigation and on
    account of their action, even the process of selection
    of regular teachers was delayed. If at this stage,
    relaxation in age, exemption from passing STET and
    weightage upto 24 marks towards experience gained as
    guest faculty teachers is given to them, it would
    amount to appointing those very candidates in regular
    service, who, in the first instance, entered it through
    a selection process which was not regular and open to
    all. Obviously, it would mean a grave discrimination to
    the other more deserving candidates. Most of the guest
    faculty teachers have service of more than two years to
    their credit, they are sure to get 24 marks at the time
    of selection and by that process they are bound to
    exclude others who are more meritorious from entering
    in service. The grant of 24 marks in the marks obtained
    by all the candidates, including the guest faculty
    teachers, as per criteria, in a fiercely competitive
    field with thousands of applicants would virtually rule
    out non guest faculty candidates. This virtually
    amounts to regularization of guest faculty teachers in
    service, which was deprecated and proscribed by the
    Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra),
    wherein it was held that persons, who got employment
    without following a regular procedure and at times
    enter through backdoor are not entitled to get
    permanence in service."

          We   have   heard   Shri   Shish   Pal   Laler,   learned   counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel

appearing for the State, learned counsel for the Commission and

learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and scrutinised the record.

          It is not in dispute that the essential qualifications

enumerated in the advertisement issued by the Commission were in
                                                6

consonance     with       the   requirement         of     the    Rules   as   amended     vide

Notification dated 24.7.2008.                  In other words, the certificate of

having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test was an integral

part of the essential qualifications. Rule 17 of the Rules does

empower the State Government to relax any of the provisions of the

Rules with respect to any class or category of persons but the

exercise of power under that rule is hedged with the condition that

while granting relaxation, the State Government must record reasons

for doing so.        Before the High Court, the State Government did not

produce any document to show that it had exercised power under Rule

17    and   passed    a    reasoned      order       for    granting      exemption   to    the

Teachers     engaged      as    the    Guest    Faculty          from   the   requirement   of

having qualified STET.                Even before this Court, no such document

has been produced. Therefore, the High Court was right in taking

the   view that       the essential qualification prescribed under the

rules could not have been relaxed by issuing a corrigendum in the

advertisement issued by the Commission.

             Shri    P.P.Rao,         learned       senior   counsel      relied   upon     the

judgment in K.V.Rajalakshmiah Setty and another vs. State of Mysore

and another (1967) 2 SCR 70 to show that one time ad hoc concession

given to teachers could be treated as legitimate and the exercise

of power by the Government does not result in violation of Article

14 and 16 of the Constitution.

             We have carefully gone through the judgment but do not

find any proposition of legality that a qualification prescribed

under the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be
                                            7

relaxed simply by issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued

by the Commission.

            Insofar as the grant of weightage of additional marks is

concerned, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that

this was an indirect methodology adopted by the State to ensure

regularisation of the Guest Faculty Teachers who had earlier failed

to    convince   the   High   Court    to       issue   a   mandamus   to   the   State

Government to frame a policy for regularisation of their services.

            In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

            As a sequel to dismissal of the special leave petitions,

all    other     pending   I.As.      are       disposed    of   as    having     become

infructuous.



      (Satish K.Yadav)                                       (Phoolan Wati Arora)
        Court Master                                            Court Master


Gaurav Rathore

  • News Editor
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5331
  • Gender: Male
  • Australian Munda
    • View Profile

Gaurav Rathore

  • News Editor
  • *****
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5331
  • Gender: Male
  • Australian Munda
    • View Profile

HTET/STET PASS TO FILE PETITION IN SUPREME COURT AGAINST DECISION OF HIGH COURT
Post under haryanaedunews


हिसार| शिक्षक भर्ती प्रक्रिया में चार साल के अनुभव की छूट का फैसला उम्मीदवारों के दो धड़ों में विवाद का कारण बन गया है। विशेष रूप से हाई कोर्ट के फैसले से पात्रता परीक्षा पास उम्मीदवार काफी आहत हैं। पात्र अध्यापक संघ ने स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि कोर्ट के इस फैसले को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चुनौती दी जाएगी। हरियाणा स्कूलअध्यापक चयन बोर्ड ने पीजीटी और पीआरटी भर्ती प्रक्रिया मेंपात्रता परीक्षा पास करने वाले अभ्यर्थियों के साथ चार वर्ष का अनुभव वाले शिक्षकोंको भी भर्ती में मौका दिया था। सरकार के इस निर्णय के पीछे अतिथि अध्यापकों के साथ साथ उन अध्यापकों को सीधा लाभ होगा, जो निजी या एडिड स्कूलों में अध्यापन करा रहे हैं। लेकिन पात्रतापरीक्षा पास उम्मीदवारों का तर्क था कि चार साल के अनुभव वाले शिक्षकों की वजह से ही प्रदेश के हजारों पात्र अध्यापक शॉर्टलिस्टिंग से प्रभावित होकरभर्ती प्रक्रिया से बाहर हो जाएंगे। इसलिएउन्होंने सरकार के इस फैसले के खिलाफ हाई कोर्ट में याचिका डाली थी। हालांकि हाईकोर्ट में याचिका डालने के बाद चीफ जस्टिस एके सीकरी की खंड पीठ ने शॉर्ट लिस्टिंग से प्रभावित पात्र अध्यापकों के अस्थाई तौर पर साक्षात्कार लेने के आदेश दिए थे। गत दिवस आए एक अन्य फैसले के बाद ये अस्थाई साक्षात्कार भी रद्द कर दिए गए हैं। इससे पात्र अध्यापकों मेंभारी रोष है। फिर किस काम की पात्रता परीक्षा विभागीय सूत्रों की मानें तो भर्ती बोर्ड की पीजीटी भर्ती प्रक्रिया मेंहिंदी, इतिहास, राजनीतिक विज्ञान व कॉमर्स विषय में शॉर्ट लिस्टिंग की थी। इन विषयों के लिए चार वर्ष के अनुभव वाले करीब सात हजार शिक्षकोंने आवेदन किया था। लेकिन बोर्ड की ओर से जारी की गई शॉर्ट लिस्ट में पांच हजार से अधिक पात्र अध्यापक बाहर हो गए। हालांकि राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद ((एनसीटीई)) ने सरकार को पत्र लिखकर भर्ती प्रक्रिया मेंकिसी भी प्रकार की छूट ना देने का आदेश दिया था, लेकिन फिर भी पीजीटी के साथ साथ पीआरटी भर्ती प्रक्रिया मेंभी इन आदेशों को दरकिनार कर दिया गया। पात्र अध्यापकों का कहना है कि अगर चार वर्ष अनुभव वाले अध्यापकों को छूट ही देनी थी तो पात्रता परीक्षा लेने के पीछे क्या औचित्य रह गया है

पात्र अध्यापक संघ अपने अधिकारों के लिए उच्चतम न्यायालय में याचिका दायर करेगा। इस पर अंतिम निर्णय 26 दिसंबर को होने वाली बैठक में लिया जाएगा। इस बैठक को संघ की महिला विंग की प्रदेश अध्यक्ष अर्चना सुहासिनी संबोधित करेंगी। संघ के जिला प्रधान नानक चंद ने बताया कि बैठक में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने जो फैसला हाल ही में दिया है उससे स्कूल प्रवक्ता श्रेणी में जो लोग चयन सूचीसे बाहर हो गए है उनके साथ न्याय नहीं हुआ। इसलिए 26 दिसंबर की बैठक में उच्च न्यायालय के इस फैसले को सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में चुनौति देने पर विचार विमर्श होगा। प्रवक्ता श्रेणी में शार्ट लिस्ट से प्रभावित पात्र अध्यापकों को न्याय दिलवाने और 4 साल के अनुभव आधार पर पात्रता में छूट को उच्चतम न्यायालय में चुनौती दी जा सकती है। टीजीटी की भर्ती हेतु सरकार पर दबाव बनाया जाएगा और एक रणनीति तैयार की जाएगी ताकि भर्ती जल्दी खुल सके

 

GoogleTagged



EVERYTHING RELATED TO STUDENT, TEACHER, TEACHING AND EDUCATION!!!

Started by LIGHTHOUSE

Replies: 49
Views: 7629
Last post September 03, 2013, 10:50:18 PM
by malkeet
regarding tet clarification for already in service teacher

Started by Charanjeet Singh Zira

Replies: 4
Views: 1962
Last post February 26, 2013, 09:42:47 PM
by Varinder
7041 ETT TEACHER....................

Started by President

Replies: 69
Views: 19219
Last post March 28, 2013, 08:41:30 PM
by ARE BEE
Punjab asks Centre to exempt EGS teachers from test

Started by RAJ

Replies: 24
Views: 9043
Last post May 30, 2012, 11:14:56 PM
by boparai
CTET TEST NU PUNJAB CH MANTA DEN DE MANG

Started by Harbhinder

Replies: 83
Views: 16342
Last post December 04, 2012, 09:54:35 AM
by KS GHUBAYA