The Principal Secretary to Government v. S.Sivakumar

JUDGMENT

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

R.SAKTHIVEL, J. When the respondents herein had sought for issuance of Writ of Mandamus before the Writ Court, for regularization of their services as System Analysts, Programmers and Data Entry Operators, the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petitions and consequently directed the Government to regularize their services, by declaring that their earlier services under a contract, was sham and nominal. Before the Writ Court, as well as before this Bench, the predominant ground raised by the Transport Department is that the services of these respondents and similarly placed persons were engaged through a contractor. When 'Vahan Sarathi' online web portal was introduced by the Transport Department with effect from 01.01.2019, the service of all these contract employees was discontinued with effect from 31.12.2018.

¶2Admittedly, the posts of System Analysts / Programmers / Data Entry Operators are not sanctioned posts in the Transport Department. It is also not disputed that the service of these System Analysts / Programmers / Data Entry Operators was discontinued way back on

31.12.2018, since the nature of that job had become obsolete.

3.Sanctioning of posts in a Government Department would be a decision which is in the exclusive domain of the State and this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not normally interfere and issue directions on such policy decisions of the State.

4.In this background, we do not approve of the directions passed in the Writ Petitions, granting regularization of services of the contract labourers.

5.Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Transport Commissioner has already made recommendations though his letter dated 01.01.2018 stating that the duties rendered by the System Analysts / Programmers / Data Entry Operators are perennial and absolutely necessary for sanctioning of such posts. As stated earlier, such a call for sanctioning of posts requires to be taken only by the State. However, the ends of justice could be secured if the Government is called upon to consider the Transport Commissioner's letter dated 01.01.2018 recommending for creation of such posts and take a final decision in the matter, within a stipulated time.

6.In the light of the above observations and directions, the orders passed in the Writ Petitions are set aside and all the Writ Appeals stand allowed. The State Government is called upon to consider the proposal sent by the Transport Commissioner through his letter dated 01.01.2018 and take a final decision, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.]

24.11.2025 kas Index: Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

R.SAKTHIVEL, J. kas W.A.No

s . 1920 and 1921

of 202

and C.M.P.Nos.

12485

and

12462

of 202

and C.M.P.Nos.3292 and 11672 of 2022 2 4 .11.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.11.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.A.No s . 1920 and 1921 of 202 and C.M.P.Nos. 12485 and 12462 of 202 and C.M.P.Nos.3292 and 11672 of 2022 1.The Principal Secretary To Government Home (TR.VII) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai - 5 ... Appellants in all W.A. Vs. 1. S.Sivakumar 2. S.Suresh 3. S.Gnanasekarapandiyan 4. B.Venkatesh 5. S.P.Senthilraja 6. M.Senthilkumar 7. S.Sriram Karthi 8. P.Saravanan 9. B.Sridhar 10. D.Sampathkumar 11. M.Venkatesan 12. V.Hydhar Ali 13. E.Tamilselvan 14. M.Prasanth 15. N.Natarajan 16. K.Balamurugan 17. D.Thangaprakasam ... Respondents in WA.1920/2021 1. K.Karthikeyan 2. P.Sivakumar 3. R.Thiravidamani 4. N.Muthuraja 5. K.Saravanan 6. S.Abdul Wahid 7. P.Dinesh 8. L.Kaliswaran 9. K.Saravanan 10. G.Muthukumaran … Respondents in WA.1921/2021 1. K.Vigrahaa 2. D.Karthikeyan 3. M.Santhosh Kumar 4. P.Dharmaraju 5. S.Chandrasekaran 6. R.Ayyappan 7. R.Andrew Kingsly 8. D.Varadharajan 9. Boopathy.P 10. S.Suthish 11. D.Venkatesan 12. R.V.Senthil Krithik 13. A.Udhayakumar 14. S.Stalin Ambedkar 15. Pandiarajan.K 16. M.sasikumar 17. Premkumar.C 18. R.Rajkamal 19. Karthik.M 20. Nadesapandian.A 21. Damodaran 22. A.Gaspar Raj 23. I.Hariharasuthan 24. S.Hariharan 25. J.Selvaganapathy 26. R.Rajkumar 27. P.Manoj 28. P.Sudharsan 29. Kalaiselvan.K 30. R.Samsudeen, 31. Saravanan.P 32. Vengatesh T 33. S.Veeraiyia 34. L.Ravikumar 35. Stanley Jeba Singh A.P … Respondents in WA.456/2022 1. E.S.Vanumamalai 2. Ravi.K 3. M.Selva Perumal 4. S.Sivasankar 5. M.Muthusaravanan 6. Subramanian.R 7. M.Rajkumar 8. Mashesh Kumar.K 9. Nainar.R 10. P.Sankar Kumar 11. B.Anbu 12. S.Franklin 13. D.Arun Raja 14. S.Gunasekaran 15. M.Nirmal Raj 16. Jaganathan.K 17. K.R.Senthil Prakash 18. G.Prasad 19. M.Narayanan 20. Kathirvela.A 21. Udayabaskar.R 22. M.Padmanabhan 23. K.Venkatachalam 24. K.Bakkiyaraju 25. G.Pannerselvam 26. M.Arul 27. A.Jayaprakasam 28. M.Subramaniam 29. A.Selvam 30. R.Rajendra Prasath 31. Sakkan.M 32. R.Selvaraj 33. V.Rajalakshmi 34. N.Saravanan 35. M.Shanmugaraja 36. S.Selvanathan 37. M.Kartheesan 38. S.Narayanan 39. P.Kumar 40. N.Shanmugasundar 41. Manickavasagam.R 42. P.S.Krishnamoorthy 43. V.Senthil Kumar 44. M.Meenatchi 45. V.Mohan … Respondents in WA.1687/2022 Common Prayer : Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the judgments dated 03.02.2021, 07.12.2021 and 14.02.2022 made in W.P.No.14782 of 2020, W.P.No.19961 of 2020 W.P.No.7352 of 2021 and W.P.No.7893 of 2021 on the file of this Court and allow the above Writ Appeals. For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar COMMON