New Delhi: The Ministry of Railways on Monday relaxed the upper age limit by two years for all categories in one of the world's largest recruitment drive for about 90,000 jobs.

"For the ongoing recruitment of Group C Level I & II posts, Ministry of Railways have decided to extend the relaxation in upper age limit," the ministry said in a statement.

Further, the candidates would have the option to take the exam in regional languages like Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Odia, Bangla and others, it said.

"Last date of submission of application would be extended suitably," it added.

Earlier, the ministry had invited online applications for 89,409 posts in Group C Level 1 (erstwhile Group D) like track maintainer, points man, helper, gateman, porter and Group C Level 2 categories like assistant loco pilots (ALP), technicians (fitter, crane driver, blacksmith, carpenter) through Railway Recruitment Boards websites.

For the Group C Level 1 posts, the upper age limit for unreserved community has been extended from 31 years to 33 years, for backward OBC community from 34 years to 36 years and for the SC/ST categories, it has been raised from 36 years to 38 years.

Similarly, for Group C Level 2 posts, the upper age limit for all communities have been raised by two years. For unreserved community, it is now 30 years, for OBC, it is 33 years and for the SC/ST communities, it is now 35 years.

Formal corrigendum is being issued on official websites of RRBs shortly along with the new last date of submission of application, said the press release.

This recruitment drive is open for candidates who have passed Class 10 and industrial training ITI for Group C Level I posts, and Class 10 and ITI or diploma in engineering or a graduation in engineering for Group C Level II posts.

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.



Seattle (AP): A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship regardless of the parents' immigration status.

US District Judge John C. Coughenour ruled in the case brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon, which argue the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court case law have cemented birthright citizenship.

The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country. The suits include personal testimonies from attorneys general who are US citizens by birthright, and names pregnant women who are afraid their children won't become US citizens.

Signed by Trump on Inauguration Day, the order is slated to take effect on February 19. It could impact hundreds of thousands of people born in the country, according to one of the lawsuits.

In 2022, there were about 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and about 153,000 births to two such parents, according to the four-state suit filed in Seattle.

The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalised in the US, and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump's order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and orders federal agencies to not recognise citizenship for children who don't have at least one parent who is a citizen.

A key case involving birthright citizenship unfolded in 1898. The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he faced being denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn't a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it's less clear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the country illegally.

Trump's executive order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for instance, a US citizen by birthright and the nation's first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.

“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own,” Tong said this week.

One of the lawsuits aimed at blocking the executive order includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent residency status.

“Stripping children of the priceless treasure' of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in US society to which they are entitled.”