The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition seeking to constitute a "<keyword id="16471584" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="renaming-commission" source="Orion">Renaming Commission</keyword>" to find out original names of 'ancient historical cultural religious places and remarked that <keyword id="3658" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="india" source="Orion">India</keyword> is a secular country and Hinduism is a way of life, because of that India has assimilated everybody. Supreme Court bench comprising Justice <keyword id="3333505" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="km-joseph" source="Orion">KM Joseph</keyword> and Justice BV <keyword id="620466" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nagarathna" source="Orion">Nagarathna</keyword> expressed its unhappiness with the petitioner and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and said that such petitions should not be entertained. "Hinduism is a way of life, and that was the reason, India has assimilated everybody and therefore we are able to live together," said Justice BV Nagarathna. Justice Nagarathna mentioned the divide-and-rule policy brought by the British in the country and remarked that "let us not break it again with such kind of petitions". The court remarked not to dig up the past as it would only create disharmony and they can't allow the country on the boil. Justice KM Joseph, who was heading the bench, said, "In Kerala, the state where I belong to, the Hindu king has donated the land to build churches". The court said that our country is secular and supposed to protect the Constitution and remarked that the petitioner is concerned about the past and digging it up to place its burden on the present generation. "The history of any nation cannot haunt the present and future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past," said the court. Justice KM Joseph said that there is no bigotry in Hinduism. Trying to convince the bench, petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay said, "Hindus have become a minority in many historical places. The country has roads after Lodhi, Ghazni, Ghori and other invaders but there is no single road named after Pandavas." In reply to the petitioner, the court said, "Keep the country in mind, not any religion. A country cannot remain a prisoner of the past and the government is wedded to rule of law, secularism, and constitutionalism." "Being a Christian, he is equally fond of Hinduism, which is the greatest religion in terms of metaphysics. The country should be proud of that", added Justice Joseph. The petitioner has sought to constitute a "Renaming Commission" to find out the original names of 'ancient historical cultural religious places', named after barbaric foreign invaders in order to maintain <keyword id="502906" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="sovereignty" source="Orion">Sovereignty</keyword> and to secure the 'Right to Dignity, Right to Religion and Right to Culture. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has sought to issue appropriate direction to the Home Ministry to constitute a "Renaming Commission" to find out the original names of 'ancient historical cultural religious places', named after barbaric foreign invaders in order to maintain Sovereignty and to secure 'Right to Dignity, Right to Religion and Right to Culture' guaranteed under Articles 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution. Alternatively, the petitioner has urged the court to direct the Archaeological Survey of India to research and publish the initial names of ancient historical-cultural religious places, which were renamed by barbaric foreign invaders, to secure the 'Right to Know' guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The petition has urged the court to direct the Centre and State Governments to update their websites and records and mention the original names of ancient historical cultural religious places, named after the barbaric foreign invaders. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/hyundai-creta-bajaj-pulsar-emerge-as-the-most-popular-car-and-bike-droom-report/articleshow/98275912.cms">Hyundai Creta, Bajaj Pulsar emerge as the most popular car and bike: Droom report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/stock-price-run-up-in-paytm-nykaa-zomato-pb-fintech-delhivery-could-see-large-shareholders-cashing-out-bofa/articleshow/98274102.cms">Stock price run up in Paytm, Nykaa, Zomato, PB Fintech &amp; Delhivery could see large shareholders cashing out - BofA</a>

SC dismisses plea to constitute "Renaming Commission"; says India a secular country

<ul><li>The SC on Tuesday held that no additional restrictions other than those prescribed under Article 19(2).</li><li>Restrictions under Article 19(2) are exhaustive.</li><li>The case originated from a statement made by <keyword id="6355085" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="azam-khan" source="Orion">Azam Khan</keyword>, then UP minister, about gang-rape case victims. </li></ul>The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday held that no additional restrictions other than those prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution can be imposed on the right to free speech of a citizen, and emphasized that restrictions under Article 19(2) are exhaustive. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. <keyword id="853181" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="ramasubramanian" source="Orion">Ramasubramanian</keyword>, and B.V. <keyword id="620466" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nagarathna" source="Orion">Nagarathna</keyword>, delivered the verdict. However, Justice Nagarathna delivered a separate judgment. Justice Ramasubramanian, reading the majority judgment, said no additional restrictions against free speech can be imposed except those mentioned under the Article 19(2) of the Constitution. "The grounds...in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive... additional restrictions not found in Article 19 (2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 (1) (a)", said Justice Ramasubramanian. The top court said a minister's statement can't be vicariously attributed to the government and the minister is liable for the statement himself. The constitution bench judgement delivered the verdict on whether restrictions can be imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expression of a public functionary. Justice Nagarathna said hate speech strikes at the root of equality and fraternity and added that fundamental duties could be used to check disparaging speeches and promote harmony among citizens. Justice Nagarathna said the court cannot impose any greater/ additional restrictions on the fundamental right of free speech of such public functionaries. The case originated from a statement made by Azam <keyword id="6355601" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="khan" source="Orion">Khan</keyword>, then Uttar Pradesh minister, about gang-rape case victims. The top court was hearing a plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter was allegedly gang-raped in July 2016 on a highway near <keyword id="84674" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="bulandshahr" source="Orion">Bulandshahr</keyword> seeking a transfer of the case to Delhi. The plea also sought lodging of a case against Khan in connection with his controversial statement that the gang rape case was a "political conspiracy". In October 2017, a three-judge bench referred the matter to the constitution bench to decide various issues, which included whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/no-second-covid-19-booster-dose-required-govt-sources/articleshow/96701441.cms">No second Covid-19 booster dose required: Govt sources</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/indias-new-covid-cases-jump-to-2582-in-last-24-hours/articleshow/96701599.cms">India's new Covid cases jump to 2,582 in last 24 hours</a>

Additional restrictions can't be imposed on freedom of speech of lawmakers: SC

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a <keyword id="19957723" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="pil" source="keywords">PIL</keyword> seeking a court-monitored CBI or SIT probe into the violence in West Bengal's <keyword id="20074422" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sandeshkhali" source="keywords">Sandeshkhali</keyword> village. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and <keyword id="20645375" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="augustine-george-masih" source="keywords">Augustine George Masih</keyword> said the Calcutta High Court is already seized of the matter and taken cognisance. "Let there be no dual forums," the bench said while granting liberty to the PIL petitioner to approach the high court. As the bench was disinclined to entertain the matter, petitioner-lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava withdrew the PIL. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn. Sandeshkhali, a village in North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, has been witnessing violent protests over allegations of sexual abuse of women by a local TMC leader and his supporters. Several women have accused local Trinamool Congress strongman <keyword id="20150607" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="shajahan-sheikh" source="keywords">Shajahan Sheikh</keyword> and his supporters of land grab and sexual assault. <keyword id="20048236" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sheikh" source="keywords">Sheikh</keyword> is absconding ever since a mob, allegedly linked to him, attacked Enforcement Directorate officials who had gone to search his premises in connection with a corruption case.

SC refuses to entertain PIL seeking court-monitored probe into Sandeshkhali violence case

<ul><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> has upheld the Indian government's 2016 demonitisation decision.</li><li>The judgement was given by a five-judge constitutional bench with a 4-1 majority.</li><li>The bench ruled that the decision-making process could not have been flawed as there was consultation with the <keyword id="30067" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="rbi" source="Orion">RBI</keyword>.</li></ul>By a majority verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the government's 2016 decision to demonetise the currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denominations. A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court, headed by Justice S A Nazeer, said the Centre's decision-making process could not have been flawed as there was consultation between the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Union government. The court said the notification dated November 8, 2016, which announced the decision to scrap the high-value currency notes, cannot be said to be unreasonable and struck down on the ground of decision-making process. The apex court said it is not relevant whether the objective behind the decision was achieved or not. "The notification dated November 8, 2016 valid, satisfies test of proportionality," the bench, also comprising justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna, said. Justice Nagarathna differed from the majority judgment on the point of the Centre's powers under section 26(2) of the RBI Act. The top court's judgment came on a batch of 58 petitions challenging the <keyword id="3315394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="demonetisation" source="Orion">demonetisation</keyword> exercise announced by the Centre on November 8, 2016. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/stock-picks-for-2023-lt-sbi-axis-bank-among-top-brokerage-picks-for-the-new-year/articleshow/96667625.cms">Stock picks for 2023: L&amp;T, SBI, Axis Bank among top brokerage picks for the new year</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/personalities/news/elon-musk-1st-person-in-world-to-lose-200-bn-in-net-worth-bloomberg-report/articleshow/96674763.cms">Elon Musk 1st person in world to lose $200 bn in net worth: Bloomberg report</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/ratan-tata-confidant-and-group-veteran-r-krishnakumar-passes-away/articleshow/96672606.cms">Ratan Tata confidant and group veteran R Krishnakumar passes away</a>

SC upholds Centre's decision on demonetisation, says decision-making process not flawed

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday said a public servant can be convicted for <keyword id="15792052" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="illegal-gratification-in-a-corruption-case" source="Orion">illegal gratification in a corruption case</keyword> on the basis of <keyword id="6493467" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="circumstantial-evidence" source="Orion">circumstantial evidence</keyword> when there is <keyword id="15792051" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="no-direct-oral-or-documentary-evidence" source="Orion">no direct oral or documentary evidence</keyword> against them. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer said complainants as well as the prosecution should make sincere efforts so that corrupt <keyword id="6377878" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Public-servants" source="Orion">public servants</keyword> are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance become unpolluted and free from corruption. "In the absence of evidence of complainant (direct or primary), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability," the bench, also comprising justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna, said. The top court said that even if direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, there can be conviction of the public servant under the relevant provisions. "In the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or is unable to let in his evidence during the trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness either orally or documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. "The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the public servant," the bench said. The apex court's verdict came while examining the issue whether in the absence of direct or primary evidence of demand of bribe, inferential deduction of guilt of a public servant can be drawn based on other evidence. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/covid-global-health-emergency-hopefully-ends-next-year-who-chief/articleshow/96247225.cms" style="">Covid global health emergency hopefully ends next year: WHO chief</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/if-youve-been-laid-off-heres-how-you-handle-awkward-questions-from-your-next-employer/articleshow/96245166.cms" style="">If you've been laid off, here's how you handle awkward questions from your next employer</a>

Public servants can be convicted in corruption case based on circumstantial evidence: SC

<ul><li>The civil appeal filed in 1979 by the <keyword id="63914" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="union-of-india" source="Orion">Union of India</keyword> against Nava Bharat Ferroy Alloys Ltd is the oldest case.</li><li>SC has constituted another five-judge bench for hearing five crucial cases including the challenge to the central government’s 2016 decision of demonetisation.</li><li>At present three five-judge benches headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="1859518" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="uu-lalit" source="Orion">UU Lalit</keyword> and Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay <keyword id="2452691" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="kishan-kaul" source="Orion">Kishan Kaul</keyword> are hearing pending cases.</li></ul>The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday decided to take up 300 old cases with one filed in 1979 from October 11 onwards, where it has agreed to hear the matter but could not be listed for various reasons. In its circular, the top court said, “Take notice that 300 oldest after notice matters of which list is appended…are likely to be listed before the courts on non-miscellaneous days with effect from Tuesday, October 11, 2022”. Among the 300 cases, a civil appeal filed in 1979 by the Union of <keyword id="3658" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="india" source="Orion">India</keyword> against Nava Bharat Ferroy Alloys Ltd and others is the oldest. A similar notice was issued on August 24 when the top court had notified that 25 five-judge Constitution bench matters will be listed from August 29 onwards, two days after justice UU <keyword id="7162" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="lalit" source="Orion">Lalit</keyword> had taken over charge as the Chief Justice of India. Since Justice Lalit assumed charge as the CJI, the focus has been made on the disposal of old pending cases which have been clogging the judicial system for years. The top court on Tuesday had constituted another five-judge constitution bench for hearing five crucial cases including the challenge to the Central government’s 2016 decision to demonetize Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes. At present three five-judge Constitution benches headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul are hearing various contentious issues, which were pending for years. The fourth Constitution is being headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer and would comprise Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna which have started hearing five cases. On September 16, the top court had in a big step towards unclogging the top judiciary burdened with humongous pendency of cases, it has, in one massive sweep, binned 13,147 old “diarized but unregistered” cases, including one filed more than three decades ago. An order issued by Registrar Judicial-1 Chirag Bhanu Singh had said all these cases were filed more than eight years ago but the defects pointed out by the Registry to the respective counsel or petitioners in person were not “cured”. The cases got the diary numbers prior to the year 2014, and the list included a case filed way back in 1987. These petitions just sat idly in the Registry, adding to the ever-growing pendency. As per the data uploaded on the Supreme Court website, there were as many as 70,310 pending cases as on September 1, 2022. These included 51,839 miscellaneous matters and 18,471 related to regular hearings. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/amid-concerns-of-jio-airtel-duopoly-analysts-suggest-new-telecom-bill-empowers-govt-to-maintain-competition/articleshow/94502923.cms">Amid concerns of Jio-Airtel duopoly, analysts suggest new telecom bill empowers govt to maintain competition</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/amazon-great-indian-festival-sale-2022-get-up-to-70-off-on-dslr-action-cameras-gimbals-and-more/articleshow/94369015.cms">Amazon Great Indian Festival Sale 2022: Get up to 70% off on DSLR, action cameras, gimbals, and more</a>

Supreme Court to hear 300 old cases from October 11, with the oldest among them filed in 1979

After being pushed by the Supreme Court, the <keyword id="6356303" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Centre" source="Orion">Centre</keyword> on Wednesday told the top court that NEET-Super Speciality exam scheduled in November this year will be held as per the old question pattern. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that in the larger interest of students, the government has decided that the revised <keyword id="12191324" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NEET-SS-exam" source="Orion">NEET-SS exam</keyword> syllabus will be introduced from 2022 -- the new question pattern will be applicable from next year. The bench replied that the "government has been very fair". Bhati said the exam scheduled this year will be held as per the old pattern. Advocate <keyword id="6368850" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan" source="Orion">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, representing a petitioner, submitted that this should not in any way imply that the court is accepting the revised pattern exam for the next year. The bench recorded that the Centre states that decision has been taken in consultation with the National Medical Commission (NMC) and National Board of Examinations (NBE) and taking note of students' interest who would have commenced preparation for NEET-SS, before the change of pattern was notified. The bench said the Centre has stated that the modified pattern will be in effect from academic year 2022-23. "Since the grievance addressed under Article 32, and in these circumstances petitions under Article 32 are disposed of", said the bench. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court pulling up the Centre on the changes in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Super Specialty (NEET-SS) 2021 pattern, said the impression and message which will go out is that the medical education and medical regulation in the country has become a business and it appears the entire haste is for filling the vacant seats. On the aspect of syllabus change, the bench told the NBE counsel, "What was the hurry. You have an examination pattern which had been going on from 2018 to 2020." The top court said: "The impression we get is that the medical education has become a business and medical regulation has also become a business". The bench also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna said this would become a tragedy for the medical education in the country. Defending the pattern change, the Centre had proposed deferring the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (<keyword id="6361994" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="neet" source="Orion">NEET</keyword>) Super Speciality exam for 2021 by a period of two months. The top court was hearing a plea by Prateek Rastogi and 40 postgraduate qualified doctors, who challenged the abrupt last-minute changes, contending that they were made to favour the general medicine candidates. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/how-to-pay-less-for-your-next-amazon-order/articleshow/86802544.cms">Amazon Great Indian Festival 2021: Use diamonds to get additional discount/benefits on your orders</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/reliance-jio-network-down-in-india-no-internet-no-calls/articleshow/86802857.cms">#JioDown: Reliance Jio network goes down in certain circles, users report they cannot use internet or make calls</a>

NEET-Super Speciality exam to be held as per old question pattern, Centre tells Supreme Court

The Centre assured the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday that the counselling process of NEET-PG will not commence till the top court decides the challenge to 27 per cent reservation for <keyword id="45661" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="OBC" source="Orion">OBC</keyword> and 10 per cent for <keyword id="11939755" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="ews" source="Orion">EWS</keyword> category in PG All India Quota seats (MBBS/BDS and MD/MS/MDS) from the current academic session. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna recorded the assurance given by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, and observed that students will be in serious problem if the counselling process goes ahead as scheduled. The assurance by Nataraj was given after senior advocate Arvind Dattar, appearing for some NEET candidates, mentioned that as per the schedule announced by the Director General of Health Services, the counselling process for the NEET-PG is to commence from October 25. He said that by the time the court decides the pending batch of petitions, challenging the July 29 notification, introducing the reservation from academic year, the entire process of admission will be over and serious prejudice would be caused to the students. Nataraj said the communication which counsel for petitioner is referring to was sent only to the medical colleges for verification of seats and one more clarificatory notification has been issued on Monday. The counselling process will not begin till the court decides the pending batch of petitions, the ASG submitted. The bench said that it is taking the word on record. We will take your word on record that counselling process will not start till we decide the batch of petitions one way or the other. You know, students will be in serious problem, if the process continues, the bench said. Nataraj agreed with the observation of the court and said that if there is any problem at all in the future, the petitioner's counsel can contact him directly. On October 21, the top court had asked the Centre whether it would like to revisit the limit of rupees eight lakh annual income, fixed for determining the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category for reservation in NEET admissions for medical courses. The top court had clarified that it is not embarking into the policy domain but is only trying to ascertain whether constitutional principles have adhered or not. It had asked the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) to file their affidavits in a week's time and had formulated questions to be answered by the Centre. The top court had said, Tell us if you want to revisit the criteria or not. If you want us to discharge our duties, then we are ready to do so. We are formulating questions which you need to answer them . It had added, We may stay the government notification fixing rupees eight lakh criteria for determining the EWS and you can keep filing the affidavits . The top court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Centre and Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) July 29 notice providing 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Class (OBC) and 10 per cent for EWS category in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) admissions for medical courses. It had asked searching questions from Centre, and asked whether any exercise was undertaken before fixing a limit of Rs 8 lakh annual income for determining the EWS category. It had said the court is not going to tell the government as to what should be the limit whether it should be rupees four lakh or rupees six lakh because it is for the executive to decide but all it wants to know is on what basis Rs. 8 lakh criteria was fixed. For determining creamy layer in Other Backward Classes (OBC) category the limit was fixed as Rs 8 lakh annual income and they were considered progressed class among OBCs and they were excluded from reservation benefits. Here, for the EWS category, the limit is the same Rs 8 lakh annual income but it was for inclusion in the reservation benefits, the top court had said. On October 7, the top court had posed searching questions to the Centre on its decision to fix a limit of rupees eight lakh annual income for determining the EWS category for reservation in NEET admissions. The Centre had then said fixing a limit of Rs eight lakh annual income for the EWS category is a matter of policy based on the National Cost of Living Index. On September 17, the top court has agreed to hear a batch of pleas of students against the July 29 notice providing 27 per cent reservation for OBC and 10 per cent for EWS category in 15 per cent UG and 50 per cent PG All India Quota seats (MBBS/BDS and MD/MS/MDS) with effect from the current academic session 2021-22. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/cryptocurrency/news/elon-musk-brings-shiba-inu-back-to-earth-dogecoin-is-the-only-meme-token-hes-betting-on/articleshow/87252833.cms">Elon Musk brings Shiba Inu back to Earth — Dogecoin is the only meme token he’s betting on</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/ibps-invites-applications-for-probationary-officers/management-trainees-in-bank-of-baroda-indian-bank-pnb-and-many-others-for-2022-23/articleshow/87249654.cms">IBPS invites applications for probationary officers/management trainees in Bank of Baroda, Indian Bank, PNB and many others for 2022-23</a>

You Searched For "nagarathna" and got 8 results