A.VELMURUGAN vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 16750 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011091222024}
1. A.Velmurugan
2. A.Gobi
3. K.Muruganathan
4. P.Ashokan
5. A.Baskar
6. V.Ajithkumar
7. S.Sivasankaran
8. M.Ramasamy
9. C.Kulandaivel
10.R.Senthilkumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
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.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the
petitioners for promotion to the Post of Driver in Tiruppur City municipal
Corporation, and Promote the petitioners from due date with service and
monetary benefits.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Prakash
For Respondent(s): Mr.Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader (for R1 & R2)
Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar (for R3)
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.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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.
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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
10 R.Senthilkumar 01.04.2000 VI STD TN392002000204 26.05.2023
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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.
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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.
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
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.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
15. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
02-11-2026
2/2
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.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

2026:MHC:4434
WP No. 16750 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 16750 of 2024
02-11-2026
2/2
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )