Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioner herein seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in Roc.No.339/A/2010 dated 12.01.2010 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Driver by recruitment by transfer from the date on which the third respondent was promoted to the post of Driver namely 12.01.2010 with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondents. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the list of candidates forwarded by the District Employment Exchange, Salem, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant-cum-Driver in Salem District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the then existing vacancy. The scale of pay of Office Assistant was 750-12-870-14-940. He joined duty on 26.2.1992 and he was working so. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Bailiff by order dated 16.11.2009 and has been working as such till date. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that a Circular was issued by the second respondent on 07.01.2010, calling for applications for the post of Driver in the Family Court, Salem, wherein it was stated that the applicant must have completed five years of basic service and must possess valid driving licence with five years experience in driving motor vehicles. Pursuant to the said Circular, the third respondent was selected as a driver and was also given appointment. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he was originally appointed as Office Assistant cum Driver in the year 1992 and he has been working as such for a long time i.e., for more than 17 years and he was promoted as Junior Bailiff only in the year 2009 and he has got necessary qualifications viz., five years basic service, valid driving licence and five years experience in driving motor vehicles, and under such circumstances, he should have been considered in the post of Driver which was now given to the third respondent. He further submitted that academically, the petitioner is having better qualification than the third respondent, but he was not appointed. Under such circumstances, he filed application on 8.1.2000 and the same was rejected. He further submitted that academically, the petitioner is having better qualification than the third respondent, but he was not appointed. Under such circumstances, he filed application on 8.1.2000 and the same was rejected. Hence, he is constrained to file the writ petition before this Court. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 7. After considering the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the writ petition could be ordered. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed as Office Assistant-cum-Driver, but his scale of pay from the commencement of appointment, was only that of Office Assistant and not that of driver. In the year 2009, he has been promoted as Junior Bailiff. It is pertinent to point that the Office Assistant is the feeder category for Junior Bailiff and thus, he has been promoted as Junior Bailiff and has been working so. 9. Insofar as the appointment of the third respondent as driver is concerned, it has nothing to do with the case of the petitioner because the application was called for appointment of driver and he has been appointed so, whereas the petitioner, though appointed as Office Assistant cum Driver, has been receiving the pay for that of Office Assistant and he was working as such all along in that pay and was promoted as Junior Bailiff in the year 2009. Under such circumstances, no grievance could be ventilated by the petitioner. It is pertinent to point out that this writ petition has come forward merely because of the appointment of the 3rd respondent as driver of the Family Court, which cannot be a reason to consider the request of the petitioner herein. Hence, the writ petition does not carry any merits. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Junior Bailiff is the feeder category of Driver, the learned District Judge, Salem shall consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, if made, for the post of Driver when vacancy arises.