一 | “烹”然心动
“食”不可挡
为进一步提高食堂工作人员的专业技能水平，促进我园营养膳食管理工作更上一个台阶，以更好地为幼儿及教职工服务，我园特举办此次“‘烹’然心动 ‘食’不可挡”食堂人员创意点心制作比赛。
食材准备
食堂人员根据幼儿年龄及饮食特点，从点心的色彩搭配、面团的发酵糅合、调料的配备等方面都做了精心准备。 New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.
Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.
"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.
"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?
Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.
On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.
"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.
"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.
"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.
He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.
The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.
Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:
Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?
Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?
What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?
UNI SM BAV GNK。
制作过程
比赛现场热火朝天，一双双巧手不停地展示着他们的拿手绝活，动作娴熟，一连串操作行云流水。
成品展示
经过一个多小时的揉、捏、包、蒸、调、摆，小食材变身一道道饱含心意的精致美食，通过精心挑选、细致处理、巧妙搭配，在爱与智慧的沉淀下，焕发出不同寻常的味道。
二 | 左右滑动，查看更多 美食品鉴 本次活动的评委由膳食管理家长委员会、家长委员会的家长代表所担任。“色、香、味”俱全的点心，赢得了评委们的连连夸赞。
三 | 颁奖留影 最终评委们从点心的食材、造型、口感、创意等多方面进行综合打分，评选出了本次比赛的一、二等奖。 幼儿园食堂组点心制作比赛，不仅是技能的比拼，更是一种责任的体现。本次比赛不仅提升了食堂工作人员的专业技能和素养，也为他们提供了一个展示自我和互相学习的平台。
四 | 随着社会对学校食品安全和膳食质量的日益关注，以及家长对孩子饮食健康的深切关心，结合《省教育厅等七部门关于加强中小学食堂与校外供餐管理的通知》文件要求，我园于2024年10月正式成立由15位家长代表组成的膳食管理家长委员会，共同参与幼儿园的膳食监督与管理，如：陪餐、验菜等膳食监管工作。 本学期中，膳食管理家长委员会代表每月来园参加膳委会，听取伙食费收支情况、幼儿膳食营养分析情况等，并提出合理化意见和建议。 爱，在健康守护里扎根； 爱，在细微关怀中萌芽； 爱，在美味珍馐间盛放。 把爱与匠心， 倾注进每一道餐点之中。 正因他们的辛勤付出， 孩子们的童年才这般“食”全“食”美！ -END- 图文编辑|小六班 一校一审|总务处 二校二审|教技室 三校三审|园长室。
Current article:http://t4cz0kh.foujiongwenruapoumeizhan.buzz/40eyjq7/m07e.html
Published on:16:42:20