Teacher Recruitment 2018: Allahabad High Court has given partial relief to the candidates on the appeal filed for the correct answers to the questions asked in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2018. Considering the answer to a question as wrong, the court has directed to give one mark to those candidates who have filed an appeal petition in the High Court and whose only one mark is falling short.
The candidates were challenged to answer six questions. According to him, the answers which have been accepted by the recruiting authority as correct are not correct. The court found only one of these objections to question number 60 to be correct. It has been directed to give one mark of one question to those candidates, who have filed petition or appeal, and in those same appellants, petitioners, who are falling short of only one mark. The court has said that if the candidate comes in merit after getting this one mark, then he should be given appointment. A bench of Acting Chief Justice MA Bhandari and Justice Anil Kumar Ojha heard the special appeals filed by Abhishek Srivastava and dozens of others.
The decision of the single bench was challenged in a special appeal. The single bench rejected the claim of the candidates. It was said in the appeals that the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination was held on 6 January 2019. Its answer key was released on 5 August 20. Candidates objected to six questions on matching answer keys. According to him, the answers given by the examination authority as correct are correct whereas the answers given by the candidates are correct.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Testing in light of Rannvijay Singh case
The High Court examined the matter in the light of the principle of law propounded by the Supreme Court in the Rannvijay Singh case. In this case, the Supreme Court has said that the powers of the courts are limited in the matter of re-examination or scrutiny of answer sheets. If there is a provision for re-examination and scrutiny in the rules of recruitment, then the authorities should give this right to the candidates. If there is no provision, the court can order re-examination or scrutiny only if it is proved with solid evidence that the examining authority has actually made a mistake in selecting the correct answer.
The Supreme Court has also said that in case of doubt, the benefit of doubt will be given to the examination authority and not to the candidate. The court examined all the six questions one by one. In five questions the candidates could not prove their claim. Whereas the name of the author given as option in question number 60 is wrong, the court has directed to give one mark of this question to the committee candidates.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Selected people will not be affected
The High Court has said that those who have already been selected and got appointment should not be affected in any way. The selection and appointment process has been completed, so giving more number or marks to all the candidates will disturb the whole process. Therefore, the benefit will be available only to those who have filed the petition and whose marks are falling short. If someone’s two marks are getting less then he will not get the benefit of this order.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Life imprisonment of the four convicts for crushing Shikshamitra with a tractor remains intact
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the appeal filed against the sentence while upholding the life imprisonment of the four convicts who killed Riyazuddin, selected as Shikshamitra in Badaun, after being crushed to death by a tractor. Confirming the decision of the subordinate court, the court directed Sadhu, Devendra and Srikrishna, who are out on bail, to surrender before the trial court to serve the sentence, while Pratap is already in jail. This order has been given by the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice JJ Munir on the appeal of Pratap Singh, Sadhu, Devendra and Shri Krishna.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge Badaun had convicted the four for the offense under Section 302 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. According to the facts of the case, the father of the deceased, Sirajuddin had lodged an FIR at Ushait police station in Badaun on November 11, 2003, that on November 11, 2003, Riyazuddin was riding a tonga towards Kadar Chowk. The four accused, riding on the tractor, stopped him at a secluded place and forcibly got down from the car, beat him up and threw him in front of the tractor.
Then Pratap Singh crushed Neriyazuddin under the wheel of a tractor. The contention of the appellants was that the prosecution could not establish the motive to kill the victim and that too ruthlessly. On the other hand, the counsel for the state government said that Riyazuddin and Pratap Singh had applied for the post of a Shiksha Mitra. The appointment of Riyazuddin to the said post created animosity in the mind of Pratap Singh and he had vowed to take revenge, which culminated in this crime.
Dismissing the appeal after hearing the division bench said that the motive is not very relevant in the case of direct evidence, where a credible evidence is available. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not stated any specific motive to falsely implicate the witnesses.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Assistant Teacher 2013 Recruitment Case- Secretary Secondary Education Service Selection Board summoned with records
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Secretary, Secondary Education Service Selection Board to appear on September 27 with the letter for non-compliance with the order to appoint the selected assistant teacher and not to file any reply in the court. The court said that a month has passed, neither there was any reply from the secretary nor any information was given to his lawyer. This order has been given by Justice Sunit Kumar on the petition of Sanjay Kumar.
The counsel for the petitioner said that in the recruitment of 2013, the board had advertised 442 posts of Sanskrit teacher, 30 girls. Results of 369 boys posts declared. If the panel was not issued, the court directed to issue it. On the petition on some wrong questions, the court directed the consideration of the complaints. Revised result declared. in which the petitioner
Has been selected at the fourth position in the SC quota.
He was allotted a college where a teacher Rajesh Kumar Saroj was working since 2017. He obtained a stay order from the High Court. Saroj was allotted another college but remained there. The petitioner has filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of the order. On which the court has summoned him with records for not responding to the secretary.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Candidates of Rural Development Officer Recruitment supplementary list should be appointed in four weeks: High Court
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Lucknow, to appoint the candidates included in the supplementary list of Village Development Officer recruitment within four weeks. These candidates were involved in the 2016 Village Development Officer Recruitment. Their names are included in the supplementary selection list released by the commission on 26 June 20.
The court refused to accept the government’s argument that the commission does not have the legal right to declare supplementary results once the results are declared. The court said that the UP Subordinate Services Selection Commission declared the results of 2947 out of 3133 advertised posts and out of these, the results of 116 posts were withheld pending verification. Later the results of these 116 posts were released. The list of 18 candidates of June 26 is of the remaining posts. This list is of the same selection process. But they were not appointed. This order has been given by Justice Sunit Kumar while accepting the petition of Robin Kumar Singh, Adarsh Kumar Pandey.
In 2013, the commission had taken out the recruitment of Village Development Officer. The results of 2947 posts were declared on 18 July 18 after the written test and interview and the results of 116 posts were withheld due to pending document verification etc. Against this, the candidates went to the court. The court directed the commission to declare the result of the remaining posts. On which the commission declared the results of 98 posts on 23 June 20 and 18 posts on 26 June 20. Joint Secretary Rural Development objected that the selection process was completed with the declaration of the results of 2947 posts. After this the commission does not have the legal right to issue the supplementary selection list.
The court said that the total advertised post 3133, declared 2947 + 116 (quota in +70 ex service) has been selected. Accordingly, only 3133 advertised posts have been selected. The government does not have the right to discriminate among the candidates of the same selection. Only withheld results have been declared. Separate list has not been released. Therefore, the recruitment process should be completed in four weeks.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Ban on suspension of Additional Chief Executive Officer Kaushambi
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the suspension order of the Additional Chief Executive Officer of District Panchayat Kaushambi and has called for a reply from the state government. Justice Pankaj Bhatia heard the petition of Additional Chief Executive Officer Ranamat Rajput. The petition challenged the suspension order dated 24 August 21.
Senior advocates Anoop Trivedi and Vibhu Rai, appearing for the petitioner, said that the petitioner was suspended on the complaint of the company which took the contract for the construction of the road. Whereas the villagers had complained of poor road construction against the contract taking company. Which was examined by a panel of three experts of MNNIT.
In the investigation of the panel, the complaint of poor construction was found to be true. Meanwhile, the contract taking company complained of demanding bribe against some engineers, employees and the petitioner of the district panchayat. Claimed that he also has audio video recording of it. On this basis the petitioner was suspended without investigation. The counsel argued that the charge sheet has not been given yet. Staying the suspension order, the court has directed the state government to file a reply.
Teacher Recruitment 2018: Fraud accused builder Mukesh Khurana’s bail rejected
Allahabad High Court has refused to release on bail Mukesh Khurana, promoter of Noida’s Rudra Group. The court has said that the petitioner, not himself, started returning the money of investors, buyers on the instructions of the court. It cannot be said that there has been no fraud and fraud with the buyers. The court has dismissed the regular bail application of the petitioner, who was released on interim bail due to illness. This order has been given by Justice Vivek Agrawal.
Additional Sessions Judge Gautam Budh Nagar rejected Khurana’s bail application. on which this application was filed. The petitioner has got interim bail on 26-June 21 for getting treatment for heart disease. He wants regular bail. The petitioner said that an FIR has been lodged in Delhi in this matter. In which he has got bail from Saket Court.
In such a situation, an FIR cannot be lodged in Gautam Budh Nagar regarding the same incident. The petitioner also submitted that out of 153 flats, full or incomplete amount has been refunded to the investors of 107. The rest is being returned. Therefore, the allegation of fraud does not arise. Action at two places in the same case is against section 300. Punishment cannot be given twice in the same offense and the main complainant is compromised.
The opposition said that Delhi’s case is about another project. it’s different. The petitioner has deliberately not filed the FIR and the charge sheet and the return of money to some people does not get rid of the crime. The petitioner is out on interim bail. A regular bail application cannot be filed without surrender. The court quoted the Supreme Court as saying that bail should not be given in economic offences.
Compromise cannot be a ground for release on bail. People deposited money for the dream house. After 8-10 years its value decreased. His dream of home was destroyed by returning the money. The project was to be completed in 2012-13. The petitioner did not try to refund the money being unable to complete the project. From this, he cannot escape the charge of fraud and fraud.
Leave a Reply