TN to pay allowance, train fare for candidates appearing for NEET outside
Chennai, May 4: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K.Palaniswami on Friday announced a travel allowance of second class train fare for Tamil Nadu students appearing for the NEET medical entrance exam outside the state.
In a statement issued here, Palaniswami said the government would pay second class train fare (for those travelling by bus an allowance not exceeding second class train fare) and a cash allowance of Rs 1,000 for Tamil Nadu students who have to travel outside the state for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
He said the government would also pay the travel fare for one person who accompanies the student.
Palaniswami said the eligible students can get the sum from the Principal Education Officer in their district through their school headmaster as an advance or claim the same on their return by submitting the necessary bills.
He said the assistance will be provided based on the copy of the NEET Hall Ticket and the identity card issued by the school as proof.
Several students from Tamil Nadu have been allotted exam centres in Kerala and Rajasthan.
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.
MUDA case: Court reserves verdict in ED's petition challenging Lokayukta 'B' report
Bengaluru: The Special Court for People's Representatives, which heard the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the Lokayukta 'B' Report that stated Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had no role in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) illegal land allotment case, has reserved its verdict.
During the hearing, the Lokayukta's lawyer said that the petition filed by the ED is not allowed under the law. There is no clarity about the investigation in the ED's petition. The ED had given a letter and 27 documents to the Lokayukta police. Based on these documents, the Lokayukta Investigating Officer filed the 'B' Report.
The ED's letter was also leaked to the media. This letter and the documents are included on page 646 of the charge sheet. The Lokayukta Investigating Officer's opinion has also been recorded. The ED is not an aggrieved party and does not have the right to question the 'B' Report. The ED is not allowed to file such an interim application, lawyer Venkatesh Arabatdi argued, citing a Supreme Court verdict.
“The Lokayukta Investigating Officer examined all the documents collected by the police and others and gave their opinion. If the ED, a third party, is allowed to intervene, it will create complications,” lawyer Venkatesh Arabatdi urged, requesting that the ED's application not be considered.
Later, ED lawyer Madhukar Deshpande argued that the ED is a statutory informant under Section 66(2) of the PMLA Act. The ED’s powers were clarified in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case. Judgments in the Martin and Nagaraj cases in 2022 also upheld the ED's powers. The Supreme Court ruled that ED and local police investigations should be complementary. In such cases, the aggrieved person does not need to be directly affected. The ED can also file a complaint against the 'B' Report, he argued.
following which, the lawyer for the complainant, Snehamayi Krishna, argued that if any person provides information, they should be considered a witness.
But while the Lokayukta police gave one version, the ED gave another. The Lokayukta said the police had not considered the ED's report.
The court, after hearing all arguments, reserved its order for April 15.
