और हाइकोर्ट ने यह कहते हुए शिक्षामित्रों की याचिका खारिज कर दी : मयंक तिवारी

राम राम साथियों, पोस्ट के साथ जो आदेश है माननीय इलाहाबाद हाइकोर्ट ने शिक्षामित्रों के सम्बन्ध में दिया है। ऐसे शिक्षामित्र जो बीएड थे और UPTET 2011 भी पास थे उनको 72,825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक चयन 2011
विज्ञापन में 10% आरक्षण दिया गया था। कुछ शिक्षामित्र जो विज्ञापन की अहर्ताएँ पूरी करते थे, ने उक्त प्रक्रिया में चयन ना लेकर समायोजन अपनाया जिसे पहले हाइकोर्ट ने फिर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने असंवैधानिक करार दिया। तब ऐसे शिक्षामित्रों ने हाइकोर्ट में अपील की कि वो TET पास है और उन्हें चयन दिया जाये/TET को भविष्य की प्रक्रिया हेतु वैध माना जाये।
इस पर माननीय इलाहाबाद हाइकोर्ट ने स्पस्ट शब्दों में कहा है कि हम आपके मामले में कोई टिप्पड़ी नही कर सकते युँकी आपका मामला रिब्यु/मोडिफिकेसन/क्लेरिफिकेसन आदि के रूप में अभी भी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में पेंडिंग है और यह कहते हुए शिक्षामित्रों की याचिका खारिज कर दी। (आदेश का पैरा 6 देखें)
कुछ ऐसा ही आपके कुछ मामलों में भी हुआ है हाइकोर्ट से। मैंने पहले भी कहा था आज फिर निवेदन कर रहा हूँ हर तरफ़ मत भागो। यदि आपने अपने नाम से सुप्रीमकोर्ट में किसी भी तरह की कोई याचिका फ़ाइल की हुई है तो अपने नाम से हाइकोर्ट में कदापि फाइल ना करें।धन्यबाद
-मयंक तिवारी
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45357 of 2017
Petitioner :- Movendra Singh and others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sanjay Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs:
"(i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the UP Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary Level) passed by the petitioners in the year 2011 to be still valid in according consideration to the petitioners for recruitment as Assistant Teacher (Junior Basis School) established and run by Board of Basic Education UP in the State of UP.
(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9529 of 2017 (State of UP & Another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav & Others) by treating the UP Teachers Eligibility Test certificate 2011 passed by the petitioners as still current and valid for recruitment as Assistant Teacher.
3. The writ petition has been filed by petitioners who are employed as Shiksha Mitra and have lost the matter upto Supreme Court holding that without possessing requisite qualification prescribed for appointment in primary Schools as Assistant Teacher, Shiksha Mitras cannot be accommodated in the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools.
4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that petitioners have already qualified T.E.T. Test and validity thereof is only five years, but respondents are not taking any step in the matter and petitioners are likely to become ineligible on expiry of above period.
4. I find that this question was noticed by Supreme Court in interim order passed in Civil Appeal No. 4347-4375 of 2014 and it was observed in order dated 17.11.2016 that it shall be considered at the time of final hearing, but in the final judgment dated 25.07.2017, nothing has been said about it. Operative part of judgment reads as under:
"26. Question now is whether in absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar facts situation, they ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the concerned authority. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides.
27. Accordingly, we uphold the view of High Court subject to above observations. All the matters will stand disposed of accordingly."
5. When this aspect has not been considered by Supreme Court and no direction has been issued, I do not find that any right has been conferred upon petitioners to seek relief as prayed for in this writ petition.
6. Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel, also could not dispute that Supreme Court has not looked into this aspect of the matter in the final order but said that since period is likely to expire, hence this Court must issue direction to State Government. In my view, remedy lies before Apex Court by seeking appropriate clarification/modification, as the case may be, but so far as this Court is concerned, it cannot pass any order on an aspect whereupon Apex Court itself has not adverted at all.
7. Dismissed.
Dt. 21.09.2017
PS
sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines

No comments :

Post a Comment