SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69636

MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.Balaji – Appellant
Versus
The Government – Respondent
WP/3308/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.06.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.NO.3308 OF 2017

AND

W.M.P.NOS.3274 AND 3275 OF 2017

1.G.Balaji

2.G.Shasti Kumar

3.R.Pandeeswaran

4.K.J.Muruganathan

5.R.Ramesh

6.M.Shanmuga Priya

7.S.Deepa

8.S.Parvathi

9.D.Kavitha

10.M.Nallendran

11.D.Balasubramanian

12.N.Mouna Gurunathan

13.A.Baskaran

14.B.Aravinth

15.T.K.Suresh Kumar

16.R.Dilipnavagar

17.C.Radhakrishnan

18.T.S.Kumar

19.V.Santhosh Kumar

20.D.Prakash

21.D.Selvam

22.N.Thirumal Murugan

23.P.Kumar

24.A.Govindasamy

25.K.Hari Kumar

26.R.Sivakumar

27.P.Saravanan

28.C.Sakthivel

29.S.Chitra

30.M.Siva Kumar

31.S.Senthivel

32.R.Suganya

33.B.Nethaji

34.R.Gopinath

35.G.Kadher Hussain

36.P.Sankara Subbu

37.M.Manimala

38.P.Lalithaprasanna

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

39.A.Thenmozhi

40.L.Mathisoothanan

41.M.Rajesh Prabhu

42.K.Muthuraja

43.P.Mahendran

44.S.Sathish

45.K.Menaka

46.S.Jayamala

47.S.Muppidathi

48.M.Mohammad Hakkim

49.E.Dhakchayani Sangeetha

50.A.M.Maharifa

51.P.Rajasekar

52.G.Karuppannan

53.T.Purushothaman

54.G.Mahalakshmi

55.K.Ramya

56.D.Anitha

57.G.Thilagavathy

...Petitioners

Vs

1.The Government of Tamilnadu

Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary

Commercial Taxes Department

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

3.P.Saroja

...Respondents

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of

Mandamus, directing the First and Second Respondents herein to

prepare a seniority list for DCTOs for the year 2011 to 2017 in

accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in W.P.

No. 12786 of 1985 dated 19.06.1986 and as confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 1454 of 1986 dated

10.02.1999 and reiterated by the division Bench of this Court in

W.A. No. 2280 of 2011 dated 31.08.2016 and prepare regular panel

for the years 2013 onwards for the promotion to the post of

Commercial Tax Officers.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy

For Respondents

:

Mr.Richardson Wilson (For R1 & R2)

Additional Government Pleader

Mr.Rengaramanujam for R3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

Heared Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy, Learned Counsel for the

Petitioners and Mr. Richardson Wilson, Learned Additional

Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second

Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart

from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Writ Petition has been filed for directing the First

and Second Respondents to prepare a seniority list for Deputy

Commercial Tax Officers for the year 2011 to 2017 in accordance

with the principles laid down by this Court in the order dated

19.06.1986 in W.P. No. 12786 of 1985 as confirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the order dated 10.02.1999 in C.A. No.

1454 of 1986 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court

in the order dated 31.08.2016 in W.A.No.2280 of 2011 and prepare

regular panel for the years 2013 onwards for the promotion to

the post of Commercial Tax Officers.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

First and Second Respondents has brought to notice that in

furtherance to the order dated 29.11.2021 in W.P. No. 10154 of

2021 and the order dated 08.12.2021 in W.P.No. 4785 and 10126 of

2021 passed by the Court, the Second Respondent by Proceedings

No.CP3/1076204/2021 in 15.02.2022 had published the provisional

seniority list and called for objections from the parties

concerned.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the said

exercise carried out by the Respondents is not strictly in

consonance with the earlier orders passed by the Court. In that

event, it is for the Petitioners to place their objections in

that regard before the concerned authorities and if they still

have any g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top