We know that as per G.O. 490-SE(S)/2P-01/2009, dt. 11.05.2009 a teacher receiving B.Ed. training on deputation from a certain school is bound to serve that school for 3 years after the completion of training. But a certain case has cropped up in which the HM of a school has made the teachers sign the old proforma of declaration which says that a teacher is bound to serve a school for the minimum period after training as per either (i) 5 years from the joining date or (ii) 3 years after training, whichever is applicable. According to the old bond the teachers will have to serve for three months only. Now, the question is whether the teachers will abide by the new order or the old one.
Re: HM forced to sign OLD Bond despite the existing new orde
Thank you very much. But, the point is that both the GOs refer to the teachers currently having their training. What if the teachers have just completed their training. For, some learned (!) HMs find charm in demoralizing their ATs and in finding ambiguities in the issued GOs. Please reply.
Re: HM forced to sign OLD Bond despite the existing new orde
IT SUPERSEDES ALL THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS DEPT. IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, NEEDLESS TO SAY THE GO(S ) IS APPLICABLE TO ALL THE IN SERVICE TEACHERS.
Re: HM forced to sign OLD Bond despite the existing new orde
Here is the circular:
It means, not only through GT but also through a fresh SSC Exam an in-service teacher can get transferred to a new school after completing his/her B.Ed. training from a certain school. Isn’t it?
Re: HM forced to sign OLD Bond despite the existing new orde
Is there any particular proforma of letter through which a deputed teacher may rejoin his school. After completing the deputation period, does a teacher JOIN or REJOIN his school?
