The Principal Secretary To Government v. S.Sivakumar

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

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.

2. Admittedly, 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