Parents can face jail in Saudi if their kids remain absent from school for 20 days; Details here
In line with Saudi Arabia's Child Protection Law, parents of schoolchildren may face imprisonment if their children are absent from school without a valid reason for 20 consecutive days, as reported by Gulf News. This measure aims to uphold the quality of education in the country.
According to information from Saudi outlet Makkah, if a student's unexcused absence reaches the 20-day threshold, their parent or guardian could become the subject of an inquiry by the public prosecution under the Child Protection Law. Following the investigation, the case will be referred to a court, where a judge will have the authority to decide on an appropriate jail term for the parent if found guilty of negligence regarding their child's school attendance.
The legal procedure against parents of absent students involves several stages, as outlined in Gulf News. Initially, the school principal is mandated to report the case to the relevant education department, which will initiate an inquiry. Subsequently, the country's Education Ministry takes over the proceedings. A family care department then conducts an inquiry into the student's absence to determine its underlying cause.
Following these stages, the parent or guardian may be subjected to investigation by the prosecution before the case is eventually brought to court.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC stays CBI probe into West Bengal govt officials' role in teacher recruitment scam
New Delhi, Apr 29: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Calcutta High Court order directing the CBI to probe the role of West Bengal government officials in a teacher recruitment scam. It, however, refused to stay for now the cancellation of the appointment of over 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff.
The top court was hearing a plea by the West Bengal government against a high court order invalidating the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff made by the School Service Commission (SSC) in state-run and state-aided schools.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, however, refused to stay the high court order cancelling the appointments and said it will hear the matter on May 6.
Observing that taking away the jobs of about 25,000 persons is a serious matter, the top court asked if it is possible to segregate the valid and invalid appointments on the basis of the material available and who the beneficiaries of the fraud are.
"We will stay the direction which says the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) will undertake further investigation against officials in the state government," the bench said.
Calcutta High Court had said the CBI would undertake further investigations with regard to the persons in the state government involved in approving the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate illegal appointments.
If necessary, the CBI will undertake custodial interrogation of such persons involved, it had said.
Challenging the order, the state government, in its appeal filed before the top court, said the high court cancelled the appointments "arbitrarily".
"The high court failed to appreciate the ramification of cancelling the entire selection process, leading to straightaway termination of teaching and non-teaching staff from service with immediate effect, without giving sufficient time to the petitioner state to deal with such an exigency, rendering the education system at a standstill," the plea said.
Calcutta High Court last week declared the selection process as "null and void" and directed the CBI to probe the appointment process. It also asked the central agency to submit a report within three months.
"All appointments granted in the selection processes involved being violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, are declared null and void and cancelled," the high court said in its April 22 order.
The high court said those appointed outside the officially available 24,640 vacancies, appointed after the expiry of the official date of recruitment, and those who submitted blank Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets but obtained appointment to return all remunerations and benefits received by them with 12 per cent interest per annum within four weeks.
Observing that it had given "anxious consideration to the passionate plea" that persons who obtained the appointments legally would be prejudiced if the entire selection process was cancelled, the bench said it hardly had any choice left.
The high court held that all appointments involved were violative of articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (prohibiting discrimination in employment in any government office) of the Constitution.
"It is shocking that, at the level of the cabinet of the state government, a decision is taken to protect employment obtained fraudulently in a selection process conducted by SSC for state-funded schools, knowing fully well that, such appointments were obtained beyond the panel and after expiry of the panel, at the bare minimum," the high court had said.
It said unless "there is a deep connection between the persons perpetuating the fraud and the beneficiaries" with persons involved in the decision-making process, such action to create supernumerary posts to protect illegal appointments is "inconceivable".
The division bench had also rejected a prayer by some appellants, including the SSC, for a stay on the order and asked the commission to initiate a fresh appointment process within a fortnight from the date of the results of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
The bench, constituted by the high court chief justice on a direction of the Supreme Court, had heard 350 petitions and appeals relating to the selection of candidates for appointment by the SSC in the categories of teachers of classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 and group-C and D staffers through the SLST-2016.
In its 282-page judgment, the high court had said retaining appointees selected through "such a dubious process" would be contrary to public interest.
