Judgment :- This petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nilgiris, Ooty, in his order Lr.No.7728/E2/95, dated 27. 95 and to quash the same. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Stretcher Bearer and posted at the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ooty, in Nilgiris District, on 22. 90. The services of the petitioner was regularised by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12525/Ni3/92, dated 111. 1992, issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nilgiris, with effect from 22. 1991. The petitioner was promoted and posted as a Driver at the Government Hospital, Coonoor, on 12. 95, vide proceedings, No.1098/TB/95, dated 12. 95, issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nilgiris. He had joined duty as a Driver, on 295. However, the Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Coonoor, had refused to permit the petitioner to drive the vehicle allotted to him. He was not paid the salary due to him for five months, even though he was regularly available for performing his duties. While so, the Joint Director of Health Services, Nilgiris, had issued the impugned order in Lr.No.7728/E2/95, dated 27. 95, posting the petitioner as a Hospital Worker at the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Ooty on a lesser pay scale. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the original application in O.A.No.7821 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.16729 of 2006. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had denied the allegations made by the petitioners and had submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nilgiris, on 27. 95, in Lr.No.7728/E2/95, is in accordance with the rules applicable to the case and therefore, it is valid in the eye of law. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that in case the petitioner was found qualified and eligible for promotion as a Driver as claimed by him, he can be considered for such promotion, in accordance with law, as and when such a vacancy arises. 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that in case the petitioner was found qualified and eligible for promotion as a Driver as claimed by him, he can be considered for such promotion, in accordance with law, as and when such a vacancy arises. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents are recorded and an order passed by this Court, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Driver, as and when such a vacancy arises, in the respondent Department, if he is otherwise eligible. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner for being promoted as a Driver in the respondent Department, if he is found to be qualified and fit to be promoted, in accordance with the relevant rules applicable to him and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.