Mega DSC exams off to a peaceful start in Eluru
On Friday, she made a surprise inspection of the examination centre at Siddhartha CBSE School in Vatluru, Eluru. She examined the arrangements and the conduct of the examinations at the centre.
She said that three exam centres have been arranged in the district for the DSC exams, being held from June 6 to June 30. Each day, the exams will be held in two shifts: from 9:30 a.m. to noon and from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. A total of 17,584 candidates are expected to appear for these exams.
Police security has been arranged at all exam centres, and Section 144 (CrPC) has been enforced. For the convenience of candidates, a control room has also been set up with the following phone numbers: 9030723444 and 9505644555. The Collector advised all candidates to reach their assigned exam centres well ahead of time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Complainant in Dharmasthala case appears before court
Mangaluru: The complainant who claimed to have buried several bodies in Dharmasthala under duress, appeared before a court in Belthangady on Friday. With his face covered in a mask, he had his statements recorded before the magistrate. His advocates, Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande, later issued a statement, saying: "The complainant in the Dharmasthala mass burials case was taken to the court of the principal civil judge and JMFC, Belthangady taluk, today for recording of his statement under Section 183 of BNSS (Section 164 of the CrPC)." The advocates added the court did not agree to the presence of the lawyers and recorded the complainant's statements in their absence. In another statement, advocates Gowda and Deshpande further said the complainant was duly granted cover and protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. "A communication to this effect was sent to us on the evening of July 10 by the authorities concerned. The complainant conveys his gratitude to the district judiciary, Dakshina Kannada, district police, and the govt of Karnataka for acting expeditiously on his request for witness protection," the advocates said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 東京のシニア夫婦が続々購入 "プレミアムプレハブ住宅" - 驚きの支払い総額 プレハブ住宅 | 検索広告 Undo Earlier, the complainant, who reportedly worked as a sanitation worker at Dharmasthala, had told the police he was forced to secretly bury multiple dead bodies under pressure from influential quarters. Based on this complaint and after obtaining necessary permission from the court, a case was registered at Dharmasthala police station on July 4, under Section 211(a) of the BNS. The complainant expressed his willingness to expose those behind the crimes and disclose the locations where the bodies were buried, provided there was legal protection for him and his family.
New Indian Express
11 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Dharmasthala mass burial case: Complainant records statement before court
MANGALURU: The ex-sanitation worker who claimed to have buried hundreds of bodies in Dharmasthala village appeared before Belthangady court in Dakshina Kannada on Friday. The complainant recorded his statement under Section 183 of BNSS (Section 164 of CrPC). Advocates Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande representing the complainant, in a press communique, said that they were firmly and clearly instructed by the complainant beforehand that one of them should be present in the Court while he makes his statements to the Court. "He is illiterate and has never been to a court before, so he had expressed serious difficulty with the process. We clearly informed the Court about this aspect. However, the Court did not agree to the presence of the advocates and commenced the recording of the complainant's statements in our absence," they said. The advocates further said that the complainant in the Dharmasthala mass burials case has been duly granted cover and protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
Time of India
18 hours ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC: Compassionate appointee has moral and legal duty to support deceased employee's family
Chhattisgarh high court RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the Family Court's decision directing a government employee to pay monthly maintenance to his stepmother and step-siblings, observing that compassionate appointment carries not just legal but moral obligations toward the dependents of the deceased. Dismissing a revision petition filed by Satyam Khakha, a lineman employed by the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board in Jashpur, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that the applicant had failed to fulfill the promise made at the time of his compassionate appointment—namely, to provide financial support to the family of his deceased father, Surendra Khakha. The petitioner had challenged a 2018 order by the Family Court, which directed him to pay Rs 1,000 per month to his stepmother, Rukhamani Khakha, and Rs 3,000 each to his minor step-siblings, Anju and Shivam, until they attained adulthood. Surendra Khakha, who served as a lineman, died in December 2010. Following his death, the Electricity Department offered a job on compassionate grounds. Rukhamani, the widow, issued a No Objection Certificate in favour of Satyam on the understanding that he would take care of the entire family, including her and the children. However, the Family Court found that despite drawing a salary of Rs 30,000–Rs 35,000 per month, Satyam did not honour this commitment. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giá vàng đang tăng mạnh trong năm 2025 — Các nhà giao dịch thông minh đã tham gia IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo In the High Court, the applicant argued that the non-applicants were his step-relations and not legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. He also claimed his monthly income was only Rs 14,500 and that his stepmother was financially self-sufficient through pension benefits. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court observed that 'under the legal objective of granting compassionate appointment, it was considered to be the moral and legal duty of the appointee to provide maintenance to the dependents of the deceased until they became self-sufficient.' The Court emphasized that Satyam had initially agreed to support the family, but later distanced himself after marriage and ceased payments even though his income had increased to over Rs 40,000 per month. Taking into account the social status of the parties and the rising cost of living, the Court concluded that the Family Court's award of Rs 7,000 per month in total maintenance was reasonable and not 'shockingly on higher side.' The High Court thus found no illegality or irregularity in the Family Court's order and dismissed the revision petition.
