Madras High Court
S.Daveedu Raja vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2025
W.P.(MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 20.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.12175 to 12178 of 2016
S.Daveedu Raja,
Jeep Driver (Selection Grade),
Rajapalayam Panchayat Union,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.16756 of 2016
P.Thirumeni Murugan,
Jeep Driver,
Thiruchuli Panchayat Union,
ATM Reddiapatti 0626 118,
Virudhunagar District. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.16757 of 2016
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development,
O/o. Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:08 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
3. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4. The Commissioner,
Rajapalayam Panchayat Union,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents in both the petitions
PRAYER in both W.P.s:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
on the file of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order of
rejection passed by him in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 5873/2008/Q2
dated 14.05.2016, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the Petitioner as
Junior Assistant by way of transfer of service within the time limit that
may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and pass such further or other
orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) Nos.12175 & 12177 of 2016:
To grant ad-interim Stay, staying the operation of the impugned
order of rejection passed by the respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. 5873/2008/Q2 dated 14.05.2,016 pending disposal of this writ
petition and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) Nos.12176 & 12178 of 2016:
To grant ad-interim Direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents
to keep one post of Junior Assistant vacant for the Petitioner pending
disposal of this writ petition and thus render justice.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:08 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Selvam for Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr. V. Omprakash, Government Advocate
for R1 to R3.
R4 – No appearance.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.Both writ petitioners seek identical reliefs. The petitioner in the
first writ petition is employed as a Jeep Driver in Rajapalayam panchayat
union, while the petitioner in the second writ petition serves in the same
capacity in Thiruchuzhi panchayat union. As they were drawing the same
scale of pay as that of a Junior Assistant, they claim eligibility for
appointment to the post of Junior Assistant by transfer of service under
Rule 3(c)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Subordinate Service General
Rules. Their individual representations requesting such transfer were
rejected by the third respondent, the District Collector, Virudhunagar,
prompting them to approach this Court.
3.The circumstances under which the petitioners’ claims came to
be rejected have been explained in the counter affidavit filed by the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:08 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
respondent, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
“6.It is submitted that though the scale of Jeep Drivers and
Junior Assistants is identical, Jeep Drivers cannot be
transferred as Junior Assistants because as per G.O. No. 189
Rural Development (E5) Department dated 10.6.1997 and
G.O. No. 240 Rural Development (E5) Department dated
7.9.2000 the persons only in lower category than Junior
Assistant can be appointed as Junior Assistants by transfer of
service. The list of eligible candidates in lower categories
mentioned in the above G.Os should be got the concurrence
of TNPSC through the Head of Department before the
appointment of Junior Assistant. Hence the driver post is not
included-in the list, the claim of the petitioner cannot be
considered. The petitioner had misinterpreted the Tamil Nadu
General Subordinate Service Rules in his favour. The Junior
Assistant post is governed by Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service
Rules. The orders passed in G.O. (4D) No.l P & A.R dated
23.1.2007 is not applicable to Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj department. The driver post in Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj department constitute a
distinct class in the: General subordinate service Rules as per
G.O. Ms.No. 134 R.D & P.R (E5) dated 14.12.2009.”
4.The petitioners have also relied upon an unreported judgment of a
Division Bench and cited the relief granted to similarly placed employees
in another department. In response, the third respondent has addressed
these circumstances in the counter affidavit, the relevant portion of which
is as follows:
“9.With respect to the averment of the Petitioner herein in
paragraph 9 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that
the decision in WA (MD) No. 1234 and 1235/2015 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:08 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
10.12.2015 is applicable only to the appellant Drivers and the
rules framed by the Government in Rule 3 (g) of the Special
Rules for Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service is not applicable in
the case of drivers since the posts of Driver and Junior
Assistants carry identical scale of pay and that the said rule
relates to giving promotion on transfer of one service to
another in the cases of Record Clerk and Office Assistants
who are getting lesser pay than that of Junior Assistants and
that the law is well settled that the Petitioner herein cannot
seek advantage of wrong orders passed in some-other
Departments like Social Welfare and that in the above said
writ-appeal, direction was given only to the Government and
hence it is open to the Petitioner to prefer appeal to the 2nd
Respondent, if he is aggrieved over the order passed by the
3rd Respondent.”
5.In view of the above, both writ petitions are devoid of merit and
are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.06.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:08 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development,
O/o. Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
3. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4. The Commissioner,
Rajapalayam Panchayat Union,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District.
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.P. (MD) Nos.16756 & 16757 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.12175 to 12178 of 2016
.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:08 pm )
