WP/16750/2024 of A.VELMURUGAN Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU on 2 November 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Driver in the Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation and to promote them with effect from their respective due dates, together with all attendant service and monetary benefits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed in the third respondent Corporation, either as substitutes or on compassionate grounds, during the period between 1997 and 2012. He would further submit that, even on the dates of their respective appointments, the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Drivers. However, they were appointed as Sanitary Workers, but they have been discharging duties as Drivers for the past 12 to 20 years. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that numerous vacancies in the post of Driver are available in the third respondent Corporation, but the petitioners have not appointed as Drivers with the corresponding pay and allowances. It is their submission that though they have been discharging duties as Drivers, they have been paid only the salary and allowances applicable to Sanitary Workers.

2.1. It is his further submission that, in similar circumstances, in other Municipal Corporations, such as Coimbatore, Tirunelveli and Tiruchirappalli, Sanitary Workers who were discharging duties as Drivers were promoted to the post of Driver. He would also rely upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.3243 of 2013 dated 29.01.2014 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1000 of 2018, dated 31.01.2023. Hence, he prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Driver in the Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and would contend that a person appointed to the post of Driver, either by direct recruitment or by promotion, must possess SSLC or equivalent qualification. Whereas, none of the petitioners has passed the SSLC examination or possesses the requisite educational qualification. It is also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that, for appointment to the post of Driver, a valid driving licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle is mandatory. Therefore, it is the specific submission of the learned Standing Counsel that, even on the dates of their respective appointments, none of the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Driver.

3.1. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, though G.O.Ms.No.152, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, dated 22.10.2022, provided for the creation of posts of Drivers, only three posts were sanctioned in the time scale of pay, whereas the remaining Drivers were directed to be engaged through outsourcing agencies. It is also his submission that the existing Drivers are permitted to continue to draw salary in accordance with the terms of their respective appointments until their retirement or promotion to other posts. He would further submit that, at present, 19 Drivers are working in the Tiruppur Corporation, of whom 16 are in excess of the three sanctioned posts, as there are no sanctioned vacancies available in the post of Driver. Therefore, it is his submission that the petitioners cannot be promoted to the post of Driver. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The main contention put forth by the learned Standing Counsel is that there are no sanctioned posts of Driver available for promotion. However, the learned Standing Counsel would, in all fairness, submit that, by virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 22.10.2022, out of the 19 posts of Driver, only three posts were sanctioned in the time scale of pay, while the remaining 16 posts were directed to be filled through outsourcing agencies. From the counter- affidavit, it is also relevant to note that, though the remaining 16 posts were converted into posts to be filled through outsourcing agencies, the existing incumbents are permitted to continue until their retirement. Upon their retirement, there would be no scope for promotion to the post of Driver, as the Government has already taken a policy decision to engage Drivers through outsourcing agencies, except in respect of the three sanctioned posts.

6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court on 09.10.2026, which reads as follows:- “The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.16750 of 2024 and the same reads as follows:- "The Commissioner, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation, Tiruppur, may file an affidavit as to whether anyone of the writ petitioner is functioning as a driver for his official car. Further, a statement may be made whether any of the petitioners had discharged duty as a driver either temporarily or permanently or on oral instructions or on written instructions. For disclosing of these facts by way of an affidavit, call the matter on 17.04.2025. The Commissioner may also consider the documents filed by the writ petitioners along with the writ petition, wherein, the Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation had issued identity card as drivers to the writ petitioners also. Therefore, keeping all these factors into consideration, an affidavit is to be filed before this Court.

2. Call the matter on 17.04.2025"

2. In this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 seeks short accommodation to get instructions.

3. Post this matter on 14.10.2026”

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the third respondent filed an affidavit wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, they have stated as follows:-

4. I submit that with regard to the averment made by the petitioner in para 4 of the affidavit, the petitioners were never appointed as drivers and they were appointed as Sanitary workers. The petitioner’s appointment are as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the petitioners Date

of appointme nt Education qualificatio n Driving Licence No, date Heavy transport license Date

1. A.Velmurugan 16.07.1997 IX STD TN3920040007965 01.11.2004 16.04.2008

2. A.Gobi 16.07.1997 VIII STD TN3920040001347 23.02.2004 12.11.2008

3. K.Murugananthan 18.04.2001 VIII STD TN3919970004694 14.10.1997 25.02.1999

4. P.Ashokan 16.03.2000 XI STD TN3919990005893 21.07.1999 02.02.2001

5. A.Baskar 16.03.2000 VIII STD TN3920090001604 17.02.2009 17.02.2009

6. V.Ajithkumar 25.01.2012 VII STD TN4220130004625 13.08.2013 30.09.2021

7. S.Sivasankaran 06.06.2012 VIII STD TN39200800011192 30.12.2008 30.12.2008

8. M.Ramasamy 01.04.2000 VIII STD TN3920140001163 12.02.2014 10.04.2023

9. C.Kulandaivel 16.03.2000 VIII STD TN3920110010837 24.11.2011 10.03.2021

R.Senthilkumar 01.04.2000 VI STD TN392002000204 26.05.2023

5. I submit that as per the above table, the petitioners did not possess the prescribed basic educational qualification of a pass in the 10th standard, as stipulated in the service rules. Furthermore, they did not hold a heavy vehicle driving license at the time of their appointment; consequently, they were ineligible for the post of driver from the date of their appointment. Moreover, as they have not yet fulfilled the basic educational qualification for the post of Driver, and there are no vacancies available for the Driver post in the Tiruppur Corporation, it is not possible to promote to the post of driver as requested. The individuals listed at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the aforementioned list are working as drivers while those at Serial Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are working as Sanitary Supervisors under work arrangement basis.

8. In the aforesaid affidavit, the third respondent would contend that the petitioners are not eligible for appointment to the post of Driver, as they do not possess the requisite educational qualifications for the said post. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu v. K. Jayapal (W.A.No.1000 of 2018, dated 31.01.2023), wherein the Division Bench, having considered the grant of relaxation in educational qualifications to certain persons, held that such relaxation cannot be granted by adopting a pick- and-choose method and that the same must be extended uniformly to all similarly placed persons who have been directed to discharge duties as Drivers.

9. In the present case, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have not specifically denied the contention of the petitioners that they have been

discharging duties as Drivers. However, in the subsequent affidavit, the third respondent has stated that only the individuals listed at Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the aforementioned list are presently working as Drivers, whereas the remaining individuals are discharging duties as Sanitary Supervisors on a work- arrangement basis. Therefore, though the respondents contend that there are no sanctioned vacancies available in the post of Driver, it is evident from their own statement that at least five of the petitioners have been directed to discharge duties as Drivers.

10. It is pertinent to mention that posts of Driver had originally been sanctioned in the Corporation. However, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 22.10.2022, out of the 19 posts of Driver, 3 posts were retained as permanent posts, while the remaining posts were converted into posts to be filled through outsourcing agencies. Therefore, when vacancies existed in the post of Driver and the petitioners were directed to discharge the higher responsibilities attached to the said post, the question of denying them consideration for appointment or promotion to the post of Driver solely on the ground of their educational qualifications, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Jayapal's case (cited supra), requires due consideration.

11. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the conduct of the respondents in not considering the petitioners for promotion against the existing vacancies in the post of Driver, solely on the ground of their educational qualifications, is arbitrary. If the respondents are of the view that the petitioners do not possess the requisite educational qualifications for appointment as Drivers, permitting them to discharge the duties attached to the said post for several years would amount to exploitation of their services, which this Court cannot permit. Though promotion is not a fundamental right, consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules is a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied.

12. In the case in hand, the respondents' failure to consider the petitioners for promotion on the ground of their educational qualifications, despite their having admittedly discharged duties as Drivers for the past 12 to 20 years, would result in the denial of their legitimate right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Jayapal's case (cited supra), the petitioners who have passed the VIII Standard are entitled to have their cases considered by applying the same relaxation in educational qualifications as was extended to similarly placed persons, subject to the applicable rules and the directions issued by the Division Bench.

13. According to the stand taken by the Government, there were 19 sanctioned posts in the Tiruppur Corporation. However, during 2020, out of the 19 posts, 16 posts were directed to be filled through outsourcing, while the remaining three posts were retained as permanent posts. It was also made clear that the said arrangement would continue until the respective incumbents retired. A perusal of the additional affidavit filed by the Commissioner, Tiruppur Corporation, does not disclose whether the incumbents have retired from service or are still continuing in the said posts. Therefore, this Court proceeds on the assumption that the incumbents are continuing in the said posts. In other words, all the 19 sanctioned posts continue to exist.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds sufficient justification to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment by promotion to the post of Driver against the existing vacancies in the Corporation, as indicated hereinabove, in accordance with the applicable rules.

15. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 02-11-2026

Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary to The Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.

2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Directorate of Municipal Administration, M.R.C. Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai- 028.

3. The Commissioner Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation, Tiruppur- 641 604.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 16750 of 2024 02-11-2026