Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2460/2024 of SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2460 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL S/O LATE SHRI DURGA PRASADAGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: IT OPERATORO/O COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, JABALPUR CIRCLE II,COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT R/O NEAR COLLECTORATEGHANTAGHAR ROAD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SINGH - ADVOCATE THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCINGASSISTED BY SHRI VIRAJ SHANKAR JHA - ADVOCATE PRESENT IN COURT)
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT VALLABHBHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENTINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXDEPARTMENT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) and the order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No.2.
Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is working as I.T. Operator in the officeof Commercial Tax Department, Jabalpur Circle 2, Jabalpur. According to him anadvertisement was issued for filling up of the posts of Commercial Tax Inspector/ Tax Assistant as is contained in Annexure P-7 dated 19.09.2023. Petitioner is staking claim on the post of Tax Assistant in the garb of GAD circular dated 22.07.2023, Annexure P-6 wherein it is provided that some reservation is to be made in favour of the contractualemployees for which the department will be obliged to determine the equivalence of theposts and thereafter in terms of the circular, posts which are found to be equivalent are tobe filled by certain percentage of contractual employees.
When this Court categorically asked Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counselappearing for the petitioner to point out as to what is the qualification of the petitionerand what is the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules to fill up the post of TaxAssistant and how he fulfills the qualification, Shri Anshuman Singh placing reliance onclauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the GAD circular dated 22.07.2023, Annexure P-6 submits that thework of determining the equivalence is bestowed on the department and the petitioner hasnot brought that equivalence on record. When I expressed my disagreement with thisargument and observed that it is the petitioner who has to prima facie establish that hefulfills the requirement for appointment on the post of Tax Assistant and if equivalence isnot yet derived by the department then only he can seek indulgence of the Court, ShriAnshuman Singh prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file properlyconstituted petition as and when he is able to establish the equivalence between the two. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
ks
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE