State of Bihar
in Central Teacher's Eligibility Test (hereinafter
CTET) and also for quashing the Memo No.547 dated
31.01.2025 (Annexure ... effect that she has obtained
less than 60 % marks in CTET, therefore, her
appointment is liable to be canceled, the aforesaid
notifications are contrary
conducts the Central Teachers' Eligibility
Test (hereinafter referred to as 'CTET'). Learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.8520 ... examination and also make it in conformity with the pattern for
the CTET examination.
9. Learned counsel for the State adopted the arguments
of learned
successful candidates for non-passing of the
CTET and D.El.Ed. Examination.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order,
direction in the nature ... rejection of successful candidates in want of
CTET & D.El.Ed. certificates and for any other
reason.
(vi) To hold and declare that
successful candidates for non-passing of the
CTET and D.El.Ed. Examination.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order,
direction in the nature ... rejection of successful candidates in want of
CTET & D.El.Ed. certificates and for any other
reason.
(vi) To hold and declare that
consider 82 marks of the petitioners
out of 150 (54.66%) in BTET/CTET Paper-1
equivalent to 55% applying principal of rounding
off or alternatively ... that 82 marks of the
petitioners out of 150 (54.66%) in BTET/CTET
Paper-1 is equivalent to 55%, applying principal
of rounding
Rahul Kiran vs The State Of Bihar on 15 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020
domicile in the State of Bihar, after completing
their training and possessing CTET and STET certificates, on
being found eligible for appointment to the post
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 qualified in Central Teacher Eligibility Test
(CTET) conducted in the year 2015. The petitioner no. 2 claims
that she worked
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 qualified in Central Teacher Eligibility Test
(CTET) conducted in the year 2015. The petitioner no. 2 claims
that she worked
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 qualified in Central Teacher Eligibility Test
(CTET) conducted in the year 2015. The petitioner no. 2 claims
that she worked
