- (1.)HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.)THE prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as permanent Driver in the second respondent Corporation in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 21 dated 02.3.1998 issued by the first respondent.
Pending the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 26.11.1998, directed the interviews to go on but no further orders should be passed. On 27.12.2002, this Court directed the Corporation not to make any appointment awaiting the outcome of the main writ petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that his name was sponsored through Employment Exchange and he was appointed as a NMR in the Corporation. He had obtained driving licence and was fully qualified to drive any vehicle. He was initially appointed to collect fees in the Cycle, Scooter stand and pay toilets run by the second respondent. Subsequently, the said work was outsourced and the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 21363 of 1994 along with others challenging their termination. Pending that writ petition, this Court directed the continuance of the petitioner in service. Even though a writ appeal was filed, the same was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the work of a Driver.

(3.)IT was during this time, G.O. Ms. No. 21 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 02.3.1998 was issued by the first respondent Government prescribing the procedure for making appointment to the post of Drivers. Subsequent to the said order, the Corporation issued notices to individuals sponsored by the Employment Exchange to attend the interview. This clearly shows that there are vacancies for the post of Drivers and the Corporation was not filling up the same in the light of the Government Order. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition.
A counter affidavit dated 10.6.2008 was filed by the Corporation refuting the stand of the petitioner. It was stated by the Corporation that even as per the G.O., certain conditions have been prescribed and the petitioner was not qualified in terms of the said G.O.