The Supreme Court set aside a 2023 judgment of the Jharkhand High Court permitting Jharkhand residents who had cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) from neighbouring states to participate in the recruitment process for Assistant Teacher positions in Jharkhand. A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal pronounced the judgment. The Court said that the impugned judgment based on the concession of the Jharkhand Advocate General amounts to changing the rules of the game after the commencement of the recruitment process in July 2023. The Jharkhand High Court's ruling came in multiple writ petitions, including a PIL filed by Jharkhandi CTET Utteern Abhiyarthi Sangh and other qualified candidates seeking directions to the State Government to conduct the State TET (STET), which had not been held since 2016. The petitioners contended that the State's inaction had prevented approximately 3-4 lakh aspirants from participating in the recruitment process, as they did not possess a valid STET qualification. The petitioners argued that the failure of the State to conduct the examination or recognize CTET as an equivalent qualification had led to the exclusion of many eligible candidates. The High Court's attention was drawn to clause 10 of the Guidelines for conducting TET, which allows a state to consider the eligibility of candidates holding a TET certificate from another State/UT. The Court also noted that the State of Jharkhand had not conducted the STET for several years and directed the State to hold the exam annually. The State Government, through an affidavit, raised concerns about regional language requirements, arguing that the recruitment process should include stipulations ensuring that teachers are qualified to teach in local and tribal languages spoken in Jharkhand. The Advocate General informed the Court that the State was willing to relax the eligibility criteria for candidates possessing CTET certificates, provided they cleared the STET within three years of appointment and were residents of Jharkhand. In the backdrop of divergent High Court views on the point, the Supreme Court is set to decide the issue as to whether Section 102 CrPC, which deals with police officer's power to seize certain property, shall apply to a criminal case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. "The petitioner has raised an interesting issue with regard to the exercise of the power by the enforcement agencies under the provision of section 102 of the Cr.P.C. in cases arising out of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act", noted a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PK Mishra in a recent order passed in a petition filed by the State of West Bengal. The Court also stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court, which set aside freezing of bank accounts of the accused-respondent on the basis that the same was done by invoking Section 102 CrPC. Briefly put, the case pertains to a person accused under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whose assets including fixed deposit accounts were frozen by authorities by invoking Section 102 CrPC. Aggrieved by the same, the accused challenged the freezing of bank accounts before the Calcutta High Court, where the authorities took a stand that the bank accounts had only been seized (and not attached) and as such, Section 18A of the PC Act was not applicable.