Tiruppur Sanitary Workers Who Served As Drivers For Years Must Be Considered For Driver Posts Despite SSLC Objection: Madras HC

The petitioners were appointed as Sanitary Workers in Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation between 1997 and 2012. They sought promotion to Driver, claiming that they had performed driving duties for 12–20 years but received Sanitary Worker pay.

The Corporation stated that the petitioners lacked the prescribed SSLC qualification and, when appointed, the required heavy-vehicle driving licence; it also contended that only three Driver posts remained sanctioned, with the others converted to outsourced posts.

In a subsequent affidavit, the Corporation confirmed that five petitioners were working as Drivers and the other five as Sanitary Supervisors on a work-arrangement basis.

The petitioners relied on the Division Bench decision in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu v. K. Jayapal, W.A. No. 1000 of 2018, concerning uniform application of relaxation in educational qualifications.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court may issue mandamus to remedy arbitrary denial of consideration for promotion. Promotion itself is not a fundamental right, but consideration for promotion in accordance with applicable rules is a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in K. Jayapal, the Court stated that relaxation of educational qualifications cannot be granted selectively and must be extended uniformly to similarly placed persons directed to perform Driver duties.

G.O.Ms. No. 152, dated 22 October 2022, retained three permanent Driver posts and provided for the remaining posts to be filled through outsourcing, while existing incumbents were permitted to continue until retirement.

The applicable service rules prescribed a pass in the 10th standard and a heavy-vehicle driving licence for Driver appointment.

The Corporation’s affidavit established that five petitioners were in fact performing Driver duties, while the respondents had not specifically denied the claim that the petitioners had been doing so for years.

The Court considered it arbitrary to refuse consideration solely on educational grounds after assigning petitioners Driver responsibilities, particularly in view of K. Jayapal and the need to apply any educational relaxation uniformly.

It held that petitioners who had passed VIII Standard were entitled to have their cases considered on that basis, subject to the applicable rules and the Division Bench’s directions.

As to vacancies, the Court noted the three retained permanent posts and proceeded on the assumption that all 19 posts continued to exist, because the Corporation’s affidavit did not disclose whether the incumbents had retired.

The petitioners who had passed VIII Standard were entitled to consideration with the educational relaxation applied consistently with K. Jayapal; the Court did not order their automatic promotion.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.