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.
