Asst teachers’ job: ‘Pasting’ in file creates doubt, says HC
LUCKNOW : The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court has sought an explanation (reply) from the state government over the pasting of one paper on another in the original file of recruitment of 69,000 assistant teachers “which created doubt in the mind of the court”. The court said for justice, it was necessary that the reason for pasting one paper on another be explained.
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court has sought an explanation (reply) from the state government over the pasting of one paper on another in the original file of recruitment of 69,000 assistant teachers “which created doubt in the mind of the court”.
The court said for justice, it was necessary that the reason for pasting one paper on another be explained.
Justice RS Chauhan passed the order while hearing a bunch of petitions by shiksha mitras who have challenged the minimum qualifying percentage fixed by the state government in the examination for recruitment of assistant teachers in primary schools of Uttar Pradesh.
While perusing the original papers in the file submitted by the state government, the court found that page no 43 had been pasted on page no. 42 and there appeared some noting after page no.42, which was not readable.
The court wanted to know as to what was the “unreadable noting”.
Special counsel for state government Prashant Chandra submitted that there was no tempering in the original file.
However, the court said: “Since the pasting of one paper on another creates doubt in the mind of the court, it would be necessary in the ends of justice that the reason of doing such an exercise be explained to the court.”
The court will decide on February 20 if there is need to examine the noting on the original file by experts of the forensic department.
The petitioners had submitted that a day after the examination (January 6, 2019), the state government issued an order on January 7 fixing the minimum qualifying marks at 65 per cent for general candidates and 60 per cent for reserved categories.
The same cut off marks in earlier examination was fixed as 45 and 40 per cent respectively, they said. The petitioners’ counsel termed the decision arbitrary.