समायोजन रद्द करने संबंधी इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट का महत्वपूर्ण आदेश देखें व डाउनलोड करें : 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Latest News

AFR
Chief Justice's Court
WRIT - A No 34833 of 2014 Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - C No 32572 of 2014 Shivam Rajan & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With

WRIT - C No 46000 of 2014 Anshuman Srivastava & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - C No 46363 of 2015 Anshul Mishra & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 50574 of 2014 Brijesh Kumar Panchal Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - C No 53568 of 2014 Smt Sarojini Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 21180 of 2015 Vinod Kumar & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 23902 of 2015 Mani Bhushan & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - C No 29674 of 2015 Akash Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - C No 44625 of 2015 Ajay Kumar & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49108 of 2015 Manish Srivastava & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49118 of 2015 Amit Kumar Singh & Anr Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49123 of 2015 Mohd Arshad Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49132 of 2015 Mahendra Pratap Singh Neeraj & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49136 of 2015 Aditya Kumar & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49140 of 2015 Alok Singh & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49143 of 2015 Atul Bajpai & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49147 of 2015 Munendra Pal Singh & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - C No 49151 of 2015 Mohd Arshad & Anr Vs State of U P & OrsWith
WRIT - A No 34931 of 2014 Vinod Kumar Patel Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - A No 35050 of 2014 Nilesh Kumar Singh & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - A No 35407 of 2014 Saurav Kumar Yadav & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors With
WRIT - A No 35824 of 2014 Vivek Chaudhary & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors With
WRIT - A No 36537 of 2014 Km Amita & Ors VsUnion of India & Ors
***
Appearances:
For the petitioners:
Mr Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate
Mr Siddharth Khare, Advocate
Miss Saumya Mandhyan, Advocate
Mr Arvind Srivastava, Advocate
Mr Rahul Agarwal, Advocate
Mr Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr Himanshu Raghave, Advocate
Mr Indrasen Singh Tomar, Advocate
Mr Tarun Agrawal, Advocate
Mr Anand Nandan, Advocate
Mr Man Bahadur Singh, Advocate
Mr Navin Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate
For the State:
Mr C B Yadav, Addl Advocate General
Mr Shashank Shekhar Singh, Addl CSC
For the respondent-Shiksha Mitras:
Mr H R Mishra, Senior Advocate
Mr R K Ojha, Senior Advocate
Mr Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
Mr K S Kushwaha, Advocate
Mr Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate
Mr Ashok Pandey, Advocate
Mr Neel Kamal, Advocate
For NCTE:
Mr R A Akhtar, Advocate
Mr M Asthana, Advocate
For the Central Government:
Mr Arvind Kr Goswami, Advocate
Hon'ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J
(Per Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
I Constitution of the Full Bench
This Full Bench has been constituted in pursuance of an order dated 27 July 2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Shiv Kumar Pathak1 and connected cases. The Supreme Court directed that all matters before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, both at Allahabad and Lucknow, relating to Shiksha Mitras shall be heard by a Full Bench at Allahabad. In pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions relating to Shiksha Mitras which were pending before the Lucknow Bench have been transferred to Allahabad in pursuance of the provisions of Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948.
II Scope of the challenge
In the leading writ petition2, the relief which has been sought, is for setting aside two notifications which were issued on 30 May 2014 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for notifying the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules, 20143 and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services (Nineteenth Amendment) Rules, 20144. By and as a result of the amendment , Rule 16-A was introduced into the Rules framed by the State Government under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20095, called the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 20116 to reserve to the State Government the power to relax the minimum qualifications prescribed for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools in the case of Shiksha Mitras for the purpose of their appointment in regular service. The second amendment which has been made by the State Government has the effect of amending the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 19817. By the amendment, the State Government has enabled the appointment of Shiksha Mitras who were working on the date of commencement of the amended Rules into regular service as Assistant Teachers of junior basic schools. The reliefs which have been sought also include a challenge to a Government Order dated 7 February 2013 issued by the Principal Secretary, contemplating the absorption into service, of Shiksha Mitras working in junior basic schools in phases covering a total of 1,24,000 graduate Shiksha Mitras and 46,000 Shiksha Mitras who have completed the intermediate qualification. There is also a challenge to a further Government Order dated 19 June 2014 implementing the decision of the State Government to absorb Shiksha Mitras into regular service. 
III For convenience of exposition, the judgment has been divided into the following parts:
(i) PART A : The legislative, regulatory and administrative framework
(ii) PART B : Submissions
(iii) PART C : Analysis
(iv) PART D : Operative orders

PART D : OPERATIVE ORDERS
For all these reasons, we allow the writ petitions in the following terms:
(i) The amendment made by the State Government by its notification dated 30 May 2014 introducing the provision of Rule 16-A in the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 by the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules 2014 is held to be arbitrary and ultra vires and is quashed and set aside;
(ii) The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Nineteenth Amendment) Rules 2014, insofar as they prescribe as a source of recruitment in Rule 5(2) the appointment of Shiksha Mitras; the academic qualifications for the recruitment of Shiksha Mitras in Rule 8(2)(c) and for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools under Rule 14(6) are set aside as being unconstitutional and ultra vires; and
(iii) All consequential executive orders of the State Government providing for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras into the regular service of the State as Assistant Teachers shall stand quashed and set aside.
The batch of writ petitions shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date:- 12.09.2015
AHA
(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
(Dilip Gupta, J)
(Yashwant Varma, J) 
http://e-sarkarinaukriblog.blogspot.com/

सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC