5 lakh applications for 35,726 teacher vacancies in West Bengal schools
The WBSSC had issued the recruitment notification on May 30, following the Supreme Court's instruction to begin the hiring process. The state was also directed to submit a compliance affidavit by May 31.Back in 2016, the commission received applications from over 3 lakh candidates for similar teaching posts, another official confirmed.Post the court's ruling in April, the WBSSC reviewed the status of those appointed in 2016. It found that 15,403 of the 17,206 teachers were not directly implicated in malpractice and allowed them to continue drawing salaries until December. However, 1,804 teachers were barred from returning to the classroom.The WBSSC clarified that the current recruitment drive is being conducted in compliance with the court's orders and remains subject to the outcome of the review petition filed by both the commission and the state government. The Calcutta High Court has also recently turned down the state's plea to allow ineligible candidates from the previous panel to reapply.Reacting to the developments, Chinmoy Mondal of the 'Deserving Teachers' Rights Forum' expressed concerns about the pace of the fresh hiring. 'Many of those who cleared the 2016 exams are now seeing their former students apply for the same posts,' he said. He argued that the commission should have focused on making a solid legal case for the untainted candidates rather than rushing into a new process.Mondal also demanded greater transparency, suggesting that the state should have published a verified list of clean candidates or released the OMR sheets publicly, given that the matter is still under judicial review.(With PTI inputs)- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
No FIR yet by Parbhani cops in Santosh Suryawanshi custodial death case despite high court directive
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Parbhani police have not yet registered an FIR in the Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case more than three weeks after the Bombay high court's Aurangabad bench issued a directive to this effect. State govt on July 10 moved the Supreme Court against the high court bench's order of July 4 but the apex court has not yet taken cognisance of the appeal. There is no stay on the HC order that required the Parbhani police to register the FIR within a week (by July 11). The state's application to HC seeking an extension to implement its directive, is pending. "State govt's appeal was listed for a hearing today (Friday) before the SC bench but was adjourned to July 30," Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Maharashtra's chief standing counsel in the Supreme Court, told TOI. He preferred not to get into the specifics of the matter, explaining that the same was sub judice. On Friday, TOI made repeated calls and also sent text messages to Parbhani superintendent of police Ravindra Singh Pardeshi seeking his response on the matter. However, there was no response till the time of going to press. Lawyer Milind Sandanshiv, who represented Somnath's mother and petitioner Vijayabai in the high court, told TOI, "The Parbhani police should have registered the FIR. They have failed to take cognisance of the HC order as well as the reminder applications we have made to them to register the FIR. We will take a call on the next step at an appropriate time." On Dec 11, 2024, protests and a riot broke out in Parbhani over reports of an alleged desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. Somnath (35), a law student residing with his family in Pune and pursuing his studies at a college in Parbhani, was among the people arrested by the police in connection with the rioting case. After his initial custody remand, he was sent to jail in magisterial custody but succumbed on Dec 15, 2024, to injuries sustained in alleged police brutalities. His mother, Vijayabai, filed a petition in the HC seeking registration of an FIR against the policemen responsible for the alleged brutality. On July 4, the high court, while observing in an interim order that there was "prima facie material" indicating "custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights, had directed the FIR to be registered at Mondha police station in Parbhani district within a week (by July 11). The FIR was to be based on a complaint application of Dec 18, 2024, by Vijayabai.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
