Calcutta HC sets aside cancellation of Trinamool MP's medical practioner registration
The High Court clearly stated that the recruitment process should be completed in accordance with the Supreme Court's order. However, the court noted that the recruitment process can be continued keeping in mind the notification issued by the WBSSC on May 30. The court did not interfere with the rest of the notification.
Earlier in this year, in a judgment the Supreme Court had annulled over 25,000 school jobs in West Bengal on the ground of illegalities in the 2016 recruitment process. Following orders of the apex court the WBSSC issued a new recruitment notification.
But it was alleged that the WBSSC notification of 2025 was against the Supreme Court's order. A case was filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging that notification.
The plaintiffs claim that the notification published for over 44,000 vacancies is not legal. The plaintiffs stated that as per the Supreme Court's order, the 2016 'selection' process should be done as per the 'rules' of that year. And there is an order to do so from among the job seekers of 2016. But in this case, it was not followed. They also claimed that the age relaxation issue was not followed as per the order.
The plaintiffs further alleged that there was corruption in the 2016 recruitment process. Keeping that case in mind, the Supreme Court ordered that a fresh recruitment should be conducted. As a result, if a fresh selection process is conducted, it should be done as per the 2016 Recruitment Rules.
The state and the WBSSC made their argument in the High Court on Monday. They claimed that the Supreme Court's order does not state anywhere that specifically identified 'ineligible' job seekers will not be able to join the recruitment process.
However, the court was not satisfied with this argument.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
37 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC urges self-regulation, stresses value of free speech on social media
The Supreme Court on Monday said citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self regulation as it mulled guidelines to regulate offensive posts on social media. A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea of one Wazahat Khan booked in FIRs in several states, including West Bengal, for his objectionable posts on X against a Hindu deity. On June 23, the top court granted him interim protection from coercive action till July 14. Khan had filed a complaint against another social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video. Offensive comments should not be made in response to similar posts, his lawyer said in court. The citizens must know the value of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The State can step in case of violations Nobody wants the State to step in (sic), Justice Nagarathna said. The judge continued, All this divisive tendency on social media has to be curbed. The bench clarified it did not mean censorship. "There should be fraternity among citizens," the bench said, as it considered framing guidelines on freedom of speech and expression for citizens. The bench underlined the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression, saying they had "rightly been placed". The bench, in the meantime, extended the interim protection from arrest to Khan till the next hearing in the case and asked the counsel to assist it in dealing with the larger issue of self regulation of freedom of speech and expression of citizens. Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him. The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued. "I have deleted all of them and apologised," his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps "reaping what he has sown". His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2.
The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
10 convicts from Jharkhand, including 6 on death row, move SC over long-pending verdict on appeals
Monday, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant took serious note of the petition and issued a notice to the Jharkhand HC for its response. According to the petition, jointly filed by the convicts, verdicts in eight cases were reserved more than three years ago. Judgments in the remaining two have not been pronounced despite a lapse of 2-3 years. New Delhi: Ten convicts from Jharkhand, including six who are on death row, have moved the Supreme Court, complaining against the delayed disposal of their appeals by the state HC. The petition raises important questions regarding convicts' rights to personal liberty and procedural fairness under the criminal justice system. It argues that convicts too have the right to live with dignity under the Constitution. Prolonged delay in disposal of their appeals is antithetical to Constitutional as well as statutory rights. Incidentally, this is the second time that convicts from Jharkhand have sought the top court's intervention in pending verdicts on their appeals filed against trial court decisions. In the previous round, four convicts had filed writ petitions under Article 32—a remedy under the Constitution to move the top court directly for enforcement of a fundamental right. Subsequent to the apex court's notice, the HC had delivered its verdict for all four, resulting in acquittal in three cases. In the fourth case, the HC had referred the case to a third judge due to a difference of opinion between the two judges. Nonetheless, the convict in the fourth case was released on bail immediately. Taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the state HC, Justice Kant's bench had asked its registrar general for a detailed report on the status of such cases, if any. Notably, all the 14 cases that have reached the top court were heard by a division bench of two judges. As per the Jharkhand HC website, Justice Rongon Mukopadhyay led the two-judges bench that heard and then reserved the verdict in these matters. Only the junior judges were different. Justice Mukopadhyay also heads the High Court Services Legal Committee—a legal aid body that provides free legal services to marginalised sections of the society. Three of six death row convicts, who filed their appeals in the HC in 2018, are facing death sentence in rape cases. One of the 10 petitioners has been in jail for more than 16 years and had filed his appeal in the HC in 2013. Six have been in jail for more than a decade, with two having spent more than 15 years behind bars. The remaining three have been in jail for 6 to 8 years now. The petitioners, who moved their petition through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), were represented in the top court by advocate Fauzia Shakil. Before moving the SC, the petitioners and their families repeatedly raised the issue of delayed verdicts with multiple authorities, including the Chief Justice of the HC. They also wrote to the Chief Minister's office and legal aid bodies such as NALSA, state as well as district legal services authority. The delay is not just a procedural violation, but a breach of a statutory mandate too. The petition pointed out that as per the Jharkhand HC rules, a judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. If not pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice may either post the case for delivering the judgment in an open court or withdraw and post it for disposal before an appropriate bench. In terms of the statutory mandate, the rape appeals ought to have been disposed of within six months of the filing of the appeal. Under the Criminal Law (Amendment Act), 2018, which came into effect on 21 April 2018, with the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 376 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc), an appeal filed against the sentence imposed under the rape law must be disposed of within six months from the date of filing of an appeal. The petition is also an attempt to seek correction of earlier Supreme Court judgments that have given relief to death row convicts only when there is delay on the part of the President or Governor in deciding mercy petitions, observing inordinate delay in the execution of death sentence causes mentally agony. Ironically, these judgments have excluded the impact of protracted delays in judicial proceedings, such as confirmation of death sentences or adjudication of criminal appeals, on a convict's mental health and dignity. Courts have criticised the executives—President and Governor—for their inexplicable delay in deciding mercy petitions of death row convicts while commuting them to life sentences, but have refrained from taking into account the judicial impasse that has forced prisoners to remain incarcerated for prolonged periods. Rather, judicial decisions have held that a convict is not under immediate threat of execution when his/her appeal is a subject of judicial consideration, meaning pendency of their case in a court does not affect them psychologically. 'It is further submitted that mere availability of judicial remedies does not eliminate the mental anguish; in fact, protracted delays in judicial proceedings exacerbate the suffering, as the convict is kept in a state of suspended animation—neither assured of life nor facing immediate execution,' the petition has submitted. 'It is respectfully submitted that the pendency of death sentence confirmation hearings or criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, is not a period of calm or relief. Rather, it is a period of uncertainty and anxiety. The convict remains incarcerated under the shadow of a potential execution despite the existence of legal remedies,' it added. Delay in pronouncement of judgments is not just a violation of the right under Article 21, but is a crucial factor for suspension of the sentence, the petition has argued. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Why Supreme Court hasn't confirmed a single death sentence in the last two years
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat High Court directs man seen on toilet seat during virtual hearing to pay fine of Rs 1 lakh
The Gujarat High Court on Monday directed a man, who was captured on camera attending a virtual court proceeding while 'seated on a toilet seat' last month, to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh in the contempt proceeding initiated against him. The Division Bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachhani, while dictating the order, said that a report of the court registry had revealed that the man had joined the virtual proceedings in the court of Justice Nirzar Desai on June 20 for a total period of 74 minutes, and was seen on a toilet seat while relieving himself. The Surat man, who was personally present in court on Monday, has been directed to deposit Rs 1 lakh to the court's registry before the next hearing on July 22. On the same day, the court also heard the suo motu contempt plea against Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna, who tendered an unconditional apology for appearing in a virtual proceeding while drinking from a beer mug. The Division Bench, during an oral exchange with Tanna, who submitted that he had 'no intention' to disrespect the court, asked if 'lack of intent could erase a contemptuous act'. In the case of the Surat man, the court also questioned his lawyer whether he had been advised about appropriate behaviour in court. The lawyer informed the court that the man had been advised to present himself in an appropriate manner. The lawyer had represented the man in the June 20 hearing, which pertained to quashing a case in which the Surat resident was a complainant. Meanwhile, referring to Tanna's case, the bench said that the court registry had submitted a report stating that the senior advocate remained connected to the virtual proceedings for 26 minutes on June 26 before Justice Sandeep Bhatt when he was 'seen talking on phone and having a drink in a beer mug' during the proceedings. While submitting his unconditional apology, Tanna said, 'I am not defending myself. I'm only pointing out so it can be taken care of. If control (with regard to joining the proceedings) is with the lawyers, this problem may arise. In my case, it was a pure error. If control is kept with officers of the court, our entry into the court wouldn't happen… And that's what the Supreme Court does.' During the hearing of the contempt petition, the court said that the Registrar of Information Technology had not submitted a report apprising the court about the 'mechanism to deal with contumacious litigants during online proceedings'. When the division bench was informed that the framing of the mechanism had been undertaken and submitted to the Chief Justice for approval, the court decided to hear the matter on July 22.
