SC refuses to stay DSC schedule, dismisses Kesireddy's bail plea
Vijayawada: The
Supreme Court
on Friday declined to interfere with the district selection committee (DSC) and teacher eligibility test (TET) schedule released by the state govt recently. DSC is responsible for recruiting teachers and conducts recruitment processes for various teaching positions in schools across the state.
Dismissing the petitions filed by six aspirants, who moved the apex court for various reasons, pleading directions to stay the schedule released by the state govt, the Supreme Court suggested approaching the high court if the petitioners have any specific grievance.
The state govt recently issued a mega DSC notification for recruitment of 16,437 teachers across the state. According to the notification, the test will be conducted from June 6 to July 6.
Over 500,000 aspirants have already applied for the examination. However, some aspirants, who became ineligible to apply for the exam, moved the Supreme Court, challenging the conditions of eligibility in the notification and seeking a postponement of the schedule as an interim measure pending disposal of the petition.
Considering the arguments of the petitioners, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran observed that the reasons mentioned in the petition do not make out a case for postponement of the schedule.
The court asked the petitioners to approach the high court with their grievances and dismissed the petitions.
In another order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by Raj Kesireddy, the prime accused in the alleged liquor scam case, and his father Upendar Reddy, who challenged the arrest of his son. Dismissing the contentions on the arrest, the apex court suggested approaching the trial court for bail as Raj is already in judicial remand.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan earlier reserved orders in both the petitions filed by Raj and Upendar. While Raj contended that the crime investigation dept (CID) lacked jurisdiction to give notices to him as he resides in Telangana, Upendar alleged that CID did not follow rules while arresting his son and did not inform him of the reasons for the arrest.
Upendar further argued that the sections mentioned in the notices given at the time of the arrest were different from those mentioned in the remand report.
He also found fault with the investigation agency for not obtaining prior permission from the authority concerned under section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act. Refuting the allegations, the CID stated that it followed the procedure as contemplated in law while arresting Raj.
Considering the arguments, the apex court dismissed the petitions and suggested approaching the trial court for bail as Raj is already in judicial custody. Raj, who worked as an IT advisor during the YSRCP regime, is alleged to have played a key role in the liquor scam, which is being probed by a special investigation team.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Brother's Day wishes
,
messages
and quotes !
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Custodial torture naked violation of human dignity': Delhi Court cites '97 SC verdict, orders FIR against cops
A Delhi court recently ordered the registration of an FIR against police officers of the Shahbad Dairy police station in a custodial torture case. 'As per the allegations, victim Naveen @ Monu was tortured by the accused police officials for the purpose of committing extortion. In view of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, a thorough investigation is required to unearth the exact role played by the accused police officials in the commission of the alleged offences,' said Additional Sessions Judge Jagmohan Singh of Rohini Court on May 21. 'Two enquiries conducted by higher police officials into the present allegations found that allegations of custodial torture upon Naveen during police custody could not be ruled out,' the court noted. The court was hearing a revision plea moved by a woman, Meenakshi, against an August 2019 magistrate court order, which had denied lodging and an FIR against the police officials for torturing her husband, Naveen. The Sessions Court also cited a 1997 Supreme Court verdict, which stated that 'custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity, and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward.' While setting aside the 2019 order, the Sessions Court directed the SHO to file an FIR against the station's chowki in charge, investigating officer, head constable, and two other persons within a week of the order. As per the original complaint, on April 3, 2018, two groups were involved in a scuffle at Naya bans, Khera Kurd in Delhi. Cross complaints were registered from both sides, and Naveen was allegedly falsely implicated in the cases. The complaint further alleged that three days later, Naveen was picked up by the accused police officials. Meenakshi alleged that her husband was 'physically and mentally tortured' by the accused and that a demand was Rs 5 lakhs was made to release him. '…the CCTV footage (in the case) as well as the call detail record need to be analysed in a government forensic lab, which is beyond the reach of the complainant as well as the victim. It has also to be kept in mind that in the present case, the complainant as well as the victim are ordinary citizens while the accused are all police officials,' ASJ Singh said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi high court orders revised results for CLAT PG-2025
The Delhi high court on Friday directed the consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to release revised results for this year's Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) postgraduate (PG) exam, awarding marks to all candidates for two disputed questions deemed incorrect in the official answer key. A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the consortium's answers for two of the three contested questions were erroneous and directed that marks be given to all test-takers, who opted for the answer deemed correct by the court. Initially, petitioners had challenged eight questions, but the Consortium withdrew four during an April meeting. After the verdict was reserved, it also agreed to withdraw a fifth question due to a discrepancy between the test booklet and the master key. That left three questions for the court to decide. In its 18-page judgment, the court refused to quash the ₹1,000 fee charged for objecting to the provisional answer key but urged the Consortium to reconsider the amount for future exams. 'While the fee is meant to deter frivolous challenges, particularly by coaching institutes, it appears excessive compared to other national-level institutions,' the court noted. The court stopped short of ordering a refund, saying most candidates had already paid the amount and retrospective relief could trigger further litigation. It asked the Consortium to refer the matter to its grievance redressal committee. The petitions reached the Delhi high court after the Supreme Court, on February 6, transferred all cases pending in other high courts to avoid conflicting rulings. These included challenges to the CLAT UG and PG results declared on December 7, 2024. The CLAT answer key has come under legal scrutiny since a Delhi high court order in December 2024, in a case filed by a UG candidate. On April 23, the Delhi high court had ordered revised UG results, but the Supreme Court stayed that directive on April 30. On May 7, the top court criticised the Consortium for framing questions 'casually' and for answers that contradicted Supreme Court rulings. It ordered revisions to the evaluation of six UG questions. The final answer key was amended on May 17, reducing the total marks to 113. UG counselling began the same day.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘This month, it will be done': Al Green issues bold impeachment warning to Trump
Congressman Al Green has reignited the push to impeach Donald Trump, vowing a floor vote this month on articles of impeachment. Calling Trump an'authoritarian president,' Green declared Congress the 'court of last resort.' He cited Trump's defiance of the Supreme Court and control over the GOP as key threats to democracy. Pledging peaceful protest, litigation, and legislation, Green warned: 'This is a moral imperative. Impeachment is coming and it will be done.' Show more Show less
