VIJAYAWADA: The High Court on Monday has observed that administrative functioning in the Commercial Taxes Department has been irregular under the leadership of Chief Commissioner of State Tax Babu Ahmed.
The HC stated that the material placed before it clearly indicated systemic lapses in the department’s operations.
The HC took note of a representation submitted in March this year, alleging harassment and denial of promotions by Babu Ahmed. The association sought action against the official, accusing him of misconduct in tax collection.
In its order, Justice Battu Devanand directed the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Central Vigilance Commission to examine the representation and dispose of it within a period of two months.
The HC instructed that both Babu Ahmed and representatives of the employees’ association must be given an opportunity to present their arguments before any decision is taken. Additionally, the HC directed the Chief Secretary to consider the employees’ grievances regarding promotions. On the other hand, the Chief Secretary was asked to resolve the matter within four weeks.
The HC mandated that a detailed report outlining the actions taken be submitted to the Registrar (General) of the High Court by the first week of July.
HC seeks reply on mandatory facial recognition in colleges
The High Court has sought detailed submissions from the Higher Education Department in response to petitions challenging the mandatory implementation of a Facial Recognition System (FRS) in colleges.
The petitions were filed by an association of private B.Ed colleges along with several individual institutions, questioning orders issued by the Higher Education Commissioner that made FRS compulsory for students. The petitioners argued that linking compliance with FRS to the grant of affiliation and participation in admission counselling was arbitrary and unilateral.
Justice Nyapati Vijay directed the department to file details. The petitioners argued that the commissioner’s proceedings were unconstitutional and sought a phased implementation with at least one year’s timeline, which they claimed was ignored by government.
The matter has been adjourned to June 29.