BYE BYE T.E.T.- JUST BATCHWISE APPOINTMENT TO JBTs IN HP IN 14 DAYS- SAYS HIGH COURT
CWP No.l502/ 2012
Ms Nisha Kumari D/O Sh Nikka Ram (at present W/O Sh. Pawan Kumar). R/O Village Karha. P.O. Bijhari. Tehsil Mehare. Distt Hamirpur. H.P.. presently residing at Village Kotlu Brahamna, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. H.P. t
....Petitioner.
versus
1. State of H.P through Secretary Education, Govt of H.P.
2. Director of Elementary Education. Directorate of Education. Government of H.P , Shimla-l.
...Respondents.
Writ Petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Coram.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol. Judge.
For the Petitioners : Mr. DuShyant Dadwai & Mr.
Chandranarayana Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr Ramesh Thakur. Assistant Advocate
General and Ms Anita Dogra, Central Government Counsel.
justice Saniav Karol. )
These bunch matters are betng disposed of by a common judgment since relief claimed for is identical and facts are similar. In CWP No 1746 of 2011. petitioner has
prayed fcr the following relief:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view the averments made in the petition, the present petition may kindly be aUowed and the respondents may kindly be allowed to consider the case of the petitioners for the batch 2002-2004 & 2003-2005. while conducting the counseling for the appointment of JBT candidates for the purposes of appointment in the services in the State of Himachal Pradesh keeping in view the fact that they were admitted for the said course In the batches 2002-2004 & 2004-2005 respectively except their examination part, which could not take place due to the litigations between the concerned the respondents as also the H.P. Board of School Education & the petitioners have been made to suffer for no fault of them as also keeping in view the tact that petitioners precious 6-7 years of life
& career has already been wasted, with the further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners against candidate*, for batches 7002-2004 & 2003-2005 respectively or to give them some kind of preference/priority ove-other candidates in the interest of justice."
2. Controversy raised In these petitions is short, simple and similar. Petitioners were admitted to two years JBT "'"raining course in the years 2002-2004/2008-7010. On account of certain disputes with regard to those courses, petitioners could not undertake their final examinations at the find of their two years training programme. Eventually, with the passing of certain directions by various Courts, petitioners were allowed to undertake their examination and complete their JBT Course.
3. There is no dispute that petitioners have successfully completed their training, as is so required oy law. Petitioners have spent huge amount of money by borrowing loans from financial Institutions for undertaking this course.
4. For filling up the post of jBT. it is not in dispute that government is employing persons, who have completed such JBT training course. However, such appointments are being maae on batch-wise basis. Some of the petitioners undertook their training in the year 2007-2004 whereas others have undertaken their course :n 7008-2010 batch, in the R&P Rules for the post of JBT, there is no requirement for clearing any lest (TET). as so stipulated in the Rules framed under under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In fact State itself has not Imposed any such condition.
)
5. It is also seen that the State has been pursuing the matter with the Central Government seeking dispensation/ relaxation of such criteria before filling up the posts of JBT. In fact, State of Haryana has issued a notification to the effect that appointments be given to the candidates, who have completed their training and TET can be undertaken by the successful candidates on or before i" April, 2015. Now the State Itself is in a position to take similar steps, which have been so taken by the Government of Haryana.
6. Independently, it be also observed that
respondents themselves have been adopting a policy of pick
ana choose, with regard to certain similarly situated persons,
who approached this Court by way of CWP No.2994 of 2008.
titled as Avinash Chander Sharma and others versus State of
H,P. and others, wherein vide judgment dated 3.6.2011, the
following observations were made:
"Consequently, there will be a director tc respondent No.1 to take a decision with regard to fllllng-up of the backlog of posts of JBT in entire StateReservation Policy and also procedure prescribed under the Rules. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no requisition is being sent by the Government to the ex-servicemen Cel[ for sponsoring the names mentioned in their roles. All posts to be filled-up by ex servicemen or their dependents are to be identified and notified accordingly. It is clarified that till such time this procedure is not complied with, no posts of JBT
shall be fiiied-up. The process of identification of the posts in question, if required, shall positively be completed within a period of four months from ^ the receipt of copy of this judgment. Only thereafter, process for selection and appointment shall take place, which In any even must complete within a reasonable period, in accordance with Statutory rules, guidelines and instructions."
7.
Significantly, while complying with such directions.
August 21,2012.
( Sanjay Karol ), J.
Ms Nisha Kumari D/O Sh Nikka Ram (at present W/O Sh. Pawan Kumar). R/O Village Karha. P.O. Bijhari. Tehsil Mehare. Distt Hamirpur. H.P.. presently residing at Village Kotlu Brahamna, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. H.P. t
....Petitioner.
versus
1. State of H.P through Secretary Education, Govt of H.P.
2. Director of Elementary Education. Directorate of Education. Government of H.P , Shimla-l.
...Respondents.
Writ Petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Coram.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol. Judge.
For the Petitioners : Mr. DuShyant Dadwai & Mr.
Chandranarayana Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr Ramesh Thakur. Assistant Advocate
General and Ms Anita Dogra, Central Government Counsel.
justice Saniav Karol. )
These bunch matters are betng disposed of by a common judgment since relief claimed for is identical and facts are similar. In CWP No 1746 of 2011. petitioner has
prayed fcr the following relief:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view the averments made in the petition, the present petition may kindly be aUowed and the respondents may kindly be allowed to consider the case of the petitioners for the batch 2002-2004 & 2003-2005. while conducting the counseling for the appointment of JBT candidates for the purposes of appointment in the services in the State of Himachal Pradesh keeping in view the fact that they were admitted for the said course In the batches 2002-2004 & 2004-2005 respectively except their examination part, which could not take place due to the litigations between the concerned the respondents as also the H.P. Board of School Education & the petitioners have been made to suffer for no fault of them as also keeping in view the tact that petitioners precious 6-7 years of life
& career has already been wasted, with the further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners against candidate*, for batches 7002-2004 & 2003-2005 respectively or to give them some kind of preference/priority ove-other candidates in the interest of justice."
2. Controversy raised In these petitions is short, simple and similar. Petitioners were admitted to two years JBT "'"raining course in the years 2002-2004/2008-7010. On account of certain disputes with regard to those courses, petitioners could not undertake their final examinations at the find of their two years training programme. Eventually, with the passing of certain directions by various Courts, petitioners were allowed to undertake their examination and complete their JBT Course.
3. There is no dispute that petitioners have successfully completed their training, as is so required oy law. Petitioners have spent huge amount of money by borrowing loans from financial Institutions for undertaking this course.
4. For filling up the post of jBT. it is not in dispute that government is employing persons, who have completed such JBT training course. However, such appointments are being maae on batch-wise basis. Some of the petitioners undertook their training in the year 2007-2004 whereas others have undertaken their course :n 7008-2010 batch, in the R&P Rules for the post of JBT, there is no requirement for clearing any lest (TET). as so stipulated in the Rules framed under under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In fact State itself has not Imposed any such condition.
)
5. It is also seen that the State has been pursuing the matter with the Central Government seeking dispensation/ relaxation of such criteria before filling up the posts of JBT. In fact, State of Haryana has issued a notification to the effect that appointments be given to the candidates, who have completed their training and TET can be undertaken by the successful candidates on or before i" April, 2015. Now the State Itself is in a position to take similar steps, which have been so taken by the Government of Haryana.
6. Independently, it be also observed that
respondents themselves have been adopting a policy of pick
ana choose, with regard to certain similarly situated persons,
who approached this Court by way of CWP No.2994 of 2008.
titled as Avinash Chander Sharma and others versus State of
H,P. and others, wherein vide judgment dated 3.6.2011, the
following observations were made:
"Consequently, there will be a director tc respondent No.1 to take a decision with regard to fllllng-up of the backlog of posts of JBT in entire StateReservation Policy and also procedure prescribed under the Rules. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no requisition is being sent by the Government to the ex-servicemen Cel[ for sponsoring the names mentioned in their roles. All posts to be filled-up by ex servicemen or their dependents are to be identified and notified accordingly. It is clarified that till such time this procedure is not complied with, no posts of JBT
shall be fiiied-up. The process of identification of the posts in question, if required, shall positively be completed within a period of four months from ^ the receipt of copy of this judgment. Only thereafter, process for selection and appointment shall take place, which In any even must complete within a reasonable period, in accordance with Statutory rules, guidelines and instructions."
7.
Significantly, while complying with such directions.
August 21,2012.
( Sanjay Karol ), J.
Comments
Post a Comment