SC junks plea against RPSC exam schedule
Jaipur: A division bench of Supreme Court Tuesday refused to grant any interim relief to petitioners who challenged the schedule of RPSC's school lecturer and coach recruitment exam, 2024, as it clashed with the UGC-NET (June 2025) exam.
Seventeen petitioners had approached the Supreme Court, and the matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. Rajasthan govt's additional advocate general Shiv Mangal Sharma stated before the court, "The state govt already took a decision on rescheduling the exam dates for the three subjects that clashed with the UGC-NET. Now no clash remains, and the grievances of the petitioners stand resolved; hence no interim order should be passed in the matter.
"
Opposing any further interference, the state stated and placed facts that the recruitment exam was vital to fill over 2,200 vacancies and was being conducted at 904 centres in 21 cities for over 6 lakh candidates.
You Can Also Check:
Jaipur AQI
|
Weather in Jaipur
|
Bank Holidays in Jaipur
|
Public Holidays in Jaipur
"Any disruption would not only jeopardise this exam but also delay 35 other RPSC exams, severely affecting the recruitment calendar and public interest. In contrast, the UGC-NET is held twice yearly, and those affected can appear again in Dec without any prejudice," Sharma argued in court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects Lalit Modi's plea seeking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 cr ED penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by former cricket administrator Lalit Modi, who had sought a direction to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema), reported news agency PTI. A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan upheld the Bombay High Court's earlier decision, which had rejected Modi's petition and imposed costs, but clarified that Modi may pursue appropriate civil remedies if he chooses. Bombay HC called petition frivolous and misconceived The case stemmed from a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court, which dismissed Lalit Modi's plea as 'frivolous and misconceived' and directed him to pay ₹1 lakh to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks. The high court held that the Fema penalty had been imposed on Modi in his personal capacity and not in connection with any public function or statutory duty. Therefore, the court found no legal basis for asking the BCCI to bear the penalty on his behalf. Modi had argued that during his tenure as BCCI vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council, the board was bound to indemnify him under its internal regulations. He maintained that the penalty arose from actions carried out in his official capacity. No writ against BCCI under Article 12 The high court also observed that despite this legal position being well established, Modi filed the petition in 2018 seeking a writ remedy that was not available in law.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹ 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount. This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him. The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine. Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity. However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions. 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated. Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit. The court also directed Lalit Modi to deposit ₹ 1 lakh as costs to the Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC refuses to entertain plea challenging Bodh Gaya Temple Act; asks petitioner to move HC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the vires of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, and asked the petitioner to approach the concerned high court. SC refuses to entertain plea challenging Bodh Gaya Temple Act; asks petitioner to move HC The Mahabodhi temple complex in Bihar's Bodh Gaya, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the four holy areas related to the life of Lord Gautam Buddha. Bodh Gaya is a place where Lord Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment. A plea challenging the vires of the 1949 Act came up for hearing before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran. The bench asked the petitioner's counsel about the prayer sought in the plea. "I have prayed that the Bodh Gaya Temple Act should be annulled as ultra vires," the counsel said. The bench said the petitioner should approach the concerned high court. "Why don't you do it before the high court?" the bench asked. "We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the high court," the bench said. The 1949 Act pertains to the better management of the temple. The Mahabodhi temple complex comprises a 50-metre high grand temple, the Vajrasana, the sacred Bodhi tree and six other sacred sites of Buddha's enlightenment, surrounded by numerous ancient votive stupas, well maintained and protected by inner, middle and outer circular boundaries. A seventh sacred place, the Lotus Pond, is located outside the enclosure to the south. Both the temple area and the Lotus Pond are surrounded by circulating passages at two or three levels, and the area of the ensemble is 5 metres below the level of the surrounding land. In April this year, Rashtriya Lok Morcha supremo and former Union minister Upendra Kushwaha demanded an amendment in the provisions of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, so that the management of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara Temple can be handed over to the Buddhists. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
