शिक्षा मित्रों की दुरस्थ ट्रेनिंग इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट से क्यों बच गई

शिक्षा मित्रों की दुरस्थ ट्रेनिंग इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट से क्यों बच गई : शिक्षा मित्रों की ट्रेनिंग पूरी ही गयी और ट्रेनिंग के लिए चयनित शिक्षा मित्रों की लिस्ट को चैलेंज नहीं किया, शिक्षा मित्रों की नियुक्ति पत्र जारी हो गए, शिक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त हो गए।
भविष्य के संदर्भ में कानून के अनुसार पालन कर भर्ती की जाए।
This is not permissible since the appointment of Shiksha Mitra on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Level Schools has already been completed and appointment letters issued. The respondents may however, consider the claim of the petitioners against future vacancies in accordance with law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7682 of 2016

Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Dubey,Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh,Rajiv Joshi

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Civil Misc. Impleadment Application dated 28.4.2016 filed by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, Impleadement Application dated 26.4.2016 filed by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Impleadment Application dated 28.4.2016 filed by Sri R.K. Singh, Impleadment Application dated 24.4.2016 filed by Sri Anil Tiwari, Impleadment Application dated 20.2.2016 filed by Sri Arivind Srivastava and Impleadment Application dated 17.4.2016 filed by Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi are allowed.
Let necessary impleadment be carried out within a week.
Office is directed to allot a number to the above six impleadment applications.
Civil Misc. Intervention Application dated 28.4.2016 filed by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Prathamik Shiksha Mitra Association is allowed.
Office is directed to allot a number to the intervention application.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Sri Manoj Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava� and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay are present in the Court and are being heard.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of the certificates issued to the candidates certifying that they have successfully completed 2 years B.T.C. Training Course through Distance Education. The other relief claimed is for quashing of the consequential action taken by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned order dated 14.1.2011 including the B.T.C. training of 2 years undergone by the candidates through Distance Education and certificates issued to them. A relief in the nature of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to treat the 2 years B.T.C. Training Course through Distance Education undergone in pursuance of the impugned order dated 14.1.2011 as ineligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary School.
The submission of Sri Arvind Srivatava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2 years B.T.C. Training Course through Distance Education ought to have been conducted by the National Open University or the State Open University but that has not been done. He further submitted that sanction was obtained from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for conducting the 2 years Training Course through the State Council of Educational Research & Training (SCERT) but later on the NCTE raised an objection that the sanction for holding the Training Course through the SCERT was obtained by them by misrepresentation.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents have however, referred to Annexure-16 of the writ petition which lays down the Eligibility of Institutions, in para 2.1 for purposes of imparting training and it is noticed that SCERTs have also been held to be eligible for holding Teacher Training Programmes.
Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand disputed this fact and submitted that para 4.2 of the Eligibility criteria further requires that a candidate should be working as a Teacher in a school at the time of making application and therefore Shiksha Mitra not being a Teacher, the training imparted to them through the SCERT was incompetent.
However, so far as the impugned order of 14.1.2011 is concerned, this was the subject of consideration by the Full Bench in Writ petition no.28004 of 2011 (Santosh Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 12.9.2015 wherein the Full Bench has passed the following order:-
"The petitioners had been engaged as Shiksha Mitras pursuant to a Government Order dated 26 May 1999 on payment of honorarium for a period of eleven months subject to renewal on satisfactory performance. The Government Order dated 1 July 2001 clarified that the scheme was not a scheme for employment in regular service since its object was to provide to educated rural youth an opportunity to render community service at the level of primary education.
On 3 January 2011, a proposal was submitted by the State Government to the National Council for Teacher Education for training of Shiksha Mitras. The proposal was for conducting a two year diploma in elementary education for Shiksha Mitras through the open and distance learning mode. The department prepared a list of Shiksha Mitras who would be imparted two years training.
The writ petition has been filed by Shiksha Mitras for quashing the order dated 14 January 2011 passed by the National Council for Teacher Education approving the proposal of the State Government for conducting the diploma through the open and distance learning mode and to direct the respondents to only permit the candidates possessing B.Ed. degrees for appointment in the Institutions run by the Board.
This petition has been listed with a batch of writ petitions relating to Shiksha Mitras but submissions have not been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. Even otherwise, we find that the two years training has already been imparted to the Shiksha Mitras whose names were included in the list and that the petitioners have not sought the quashing of the list.
This petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed."
Sri Arvind Srivastava then submitted that directions of the Full Bench are not applicable in the present case because in that writ petition quashing of the selection had not been sought.
In the present writ petition, the reliefs claimed have already been referred hereinabove and no list has been challenged in this writ petition also. Only the training certificates awarded to the Shiksha Mitra have been challenged. However, the list of Shiksha Mitra who had completed the training course successfully which would be obvious from the order of the Full Bench dated 12.9.2015 wherein the Full Bench has referred to the list, has not been challenged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, particularly para 2 therein and submits that it is only the National Open University, State Open University and the Directorates/School of Open and Distance Learning in the Central or State Universities that are eligible to conduct the Teachers Education Programme and the Deemed Universities, Agricultural or Technical Universities, which specialize in a field other than Teacher Education and other disciplines specific Universities or Institutions are not eligible to offer Teacher Education Programmes through ODL.
Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel then submitted that the petitioners can at least be considered against the vacancies which are being filled by the Shiksha Mitra in the impugned selection.
This is not permissible since the appointment of Shiksha Mitra on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Level Schools has already been completed and appointment letters issued. The respondents may however, consider the claim of the petitioners against future vacancies in accordance with law.
In any case, after the decision of the Full Bench, this writ petition seeking to rake up the issues which have been settled far back cannot be entertained.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2016
Kirti
sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines

No comments :

Post a Comment

ख़बरें अब तक