Parmeshwari Rajkamal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Held
The Court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's claim or the dispute raised by the State regarding her marks, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner, State Tax) to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. The decision is to be taken expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the receipt of the Court's order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving the decision entirely to the Commissioner to be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law. No specific provision of the GST Act or Rules was discussed in relation to the core dispute of marks.
Facts
The petitioner, Parmeshwari Rajkamal, a Scheduled Tribe candidate, is employed as an Assistant Grade-II in the State Tax office. She participated in an examination for promotion to the post of State Tax Inspector. The petitioner claims to have secured more than the minimum qualifying marks, including the relaxation for ST candidates. However, she was not called for further recruitment proceedings. Consequently, she submitted a representation to the Commissioner, State Tax, on May 8, 2023, which remained undecided. The petitioner sought a direction for the Commissioner to decide her representation promptly. The State counsel did not dispute the prayer for a direction but raised a point regarding the petitioner's marks in one paper.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the Commissioner, State Tax, to decide the pending representation of the petitioner regarding her promotion to the post of State Tax Inspector? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, a ST category candidate, participated in the promotion examination and allegedly secured the minimum required marks. Her representation to the Commissioner, State Tax, is pending, and she seeks a direction for its expeditious disposal. Revenue/State's contention: The State counsel acknowledged the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide the representation but disputed the petitioner's claim regarding her marks in one of the papers, stating it was not reflected in the answer sheet.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3674 of 2023 Parmeshwari Rajkamal D/o. Late T. Rajkamal, Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade - II, In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Raipur, Circle-8, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
Commissioner, State Tax, Office Of The Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, GST Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Verma, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 16/06/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is Scheduled Tribe category candidate and is presently working and posted as Assistant Grade-II in the office of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Raipur. Petitioner participated in the exam
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.