TNTET : Writ Petition Regarding Wrong Questions in TNTET 2013 in Madras High Court

TNTET : Writ Petition Regarding Wrong Questions in TNTET 2013 in Madras High Court

1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.11.2013
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.(MD)Nos.18223 to 18225 & 18286 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.18223 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.18224 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in W.P(MD).No.18225 of 2013
W.P.(MD).Nos.18223 to 18225 of 2013:
N.Kalai Selvi
.. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.18223/2013
K.Dhanaa
.. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.18224/2013
A.Jegan Selvaraj
.. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.18225/2013
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,rep. by its Principal Secretary,Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai -09.
2.The Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maaligai,
2
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai - 06.
.. Respondents in
all the petitions
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.18223 of 2013:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the final key
answer provided for the question paper in TNTET-1 (Paper-I), Booklet Series-A,
pertaining to question Nos.3, 27, and 71, provided by the respondent No.2, as
incorrect and accordingly, direct the respondent No.2 to award three more
marks in addition to the marks secured by the petitioner, i.e., 89 out of 150
and to declare the petitioner bearing Roll No.13TE20102683 to have passed in
TNTET Paper-I, 2013, within a stipulated time.
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.18224 of 2013:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the final key
answer provided for the question paper in TNTET-1 (Paper-I), Booklet Series-D,
pertaining to question Nos.17, 18, 22 and 66, provided by the respondent No.
2, as incorrect and accordingly direct the respondent No.2 to award four more
marks in addition to the marks secured by the petitioner, i.e., 88 out of 150
and to declare the petitioner bearing Roll No.13TE16101069 to have passed in
TNTET Paper-I, 2013, within a stipulated time.
3

TNTET : Supreme Court rejects plea against Tamil Nadu's decision to fix cut off marks

Tamilnadu TET |Teachers Eligibility Test|Compulsory 

Education Act | RIght To Education Act | TNTET

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea against the Tamil Nadu government's decision to fix 60 % cut off marks in the state Teacher Eligibility Test conducted this year.
"We find it difficult to accede to the request of the counsel. The question as to whether the cut off marks stipulated for the reserved category candidates have to be reduced or not, is entirely a matter for the State Government to decide," a bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri said.
"The court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot grant such relaxation/concessional marks, as the same is the decision to be taken by the State Government," it said.
A Marx, a professor, had said that fixing 60 % as uniform qualifying marks is illegal and violative of Article 16(4) of the Constitution and state government is required to fulfill the constitutional obligation in allocating minimum qualifying marks based on communal reservation.
Rejecting the plea, the apex court said the state authorities, in their wisdom, fixed the cut off marks and the "court cannot substitute its views to that of the experts. We, in such circumstances, are not inclined to interfere with these special leave petitions and the same are dismissed".
Earlier, the Madras High Court had also refused to grant relief saying this is a policy matter
News Source : dnaindia.com/ (13.12.2013)

TNTET : न्यूनतम अंक तय करने के खिलाफ याचिका खारिज

TNTET : न्यूनतम अंक तय करने के खिलाफ याचिका खारिज

NCTE Clearly Specifide in its Guidelines that relaxation below 60% for SC/ST/PH etc. categories is in the hands of State Govt/Selection Authorities.

And similar RIGHTS used by Tamilnadu Government to Make Pass Marks 60% in its TET Examination for All.
Court has also follow the written procedures / regulation/ constitution and I felt on simlar lines this Judgement -
60% Pass Marks for All Category
comes out.

See this : 

Qualifying marks

9 A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET

pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)

(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC,

differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation

policyhttp://www.ncte-india.org/RTE-TET-guidelines%5B1%5D%20%28latest%29.pdf
*****************
NCTE ne Spasht Kiya Hai Ki TET Pass marks 60 % hain, Halanki Management / Govt ko right hai apnee policy ke anusaar is marks mein chhot / relaxation dene ka.
Koee Ye Soche ki Ye Judgement Govt ke favor mein hai Ya Kisee aur ke Favor mein, Aisa Nahin Hai.
Supreme Court ne wahee Kaha / Kiya Jo Rules mein Likhaa Hai.

Tamilnadu Govt. ne Sabke Liye TET Passing Marks 60% Rakhe Hain aur usko yeh karne ke Powers thee.
See News :

न्यूनतम अंक तय करने के खिलाफ याचिका खारिज

नई दिल्ली (एजेंसी)। उच्चतम न्यायालय ने तमिलनाडु में शिक्षकों के लिए पात्रता परीक्षा में न्यनूतम 60 फीसद अंक निर्धारित करने के राज्य सरकार के निर्णय को चुनौती देने वाली याचिका खारिज कर दी। न्यायमूर्ति केएस राधाकृष्णन और न्यायमूर्ति एके सीकरी की खंडपीठ ने शुक्रवार को याचिका खारिज करते हुए कहा, ‘ हमारे लिए वकील के इस अनुरोध को स्वीकार करना मुश्किल है। आरक्षित वर्ग के प्रत्याशियों के लिये न्यूनतम अंक घटाने के सवाल पर पूरी तरह से राज्य सरकार को ही निर्णय लेना है।’ न्यायाधीशों ने कहा, ‘ रिट न्यायाधिकार का इस्तेमाल करके न्यायालय अंकों में किसी प्रकार की रियायत नहीं दे सकता क्योंकि यह निर्णय राज्य सरकार को ही करना होगा।’ प्रो. ए. मार्क्‍स का तर्क था कि सभी के लिए एक समान योग्यता अंक निर्धारित करना गैरकानूनी है और इससे संविधान के अनुच्छेद 16(4) का उल्लंघन होता है। संप्रदाय के आरक्षण के आधार पर पात्रता के लिये न्यूनतम अंक निर्धारित करना राज्य सरकार के लिए आवश्यक है। इससे पहले, मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने भी इसे नीतिगत मामला बताते हुए इसमें किसी प्रकार की राहत देने से इनकार कर दिया था।

News Sabhaar : rashtriyasahara.com (14.12.2013) / http://www.rashtriyasahara.com/epapermain.aspx?queryed=10&querypage=1&boxid=17215946&parentid=47150&eddate=12/14/13