Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition, is seeking for a Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to sponsor the petitioner for appointment as a driver under the respondents 1 to 3 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as such under them. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he passed S.S.L.C and studied + 2 and he is holding a driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicles and Light Motor Vehicles - Transport vehicles. The petitioner registered his name with the Employment Exchange. He is fully qualified for being considered to the post of Driver under the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner was employed as a Driver on 27.03.2006 by the third respondent. On 04.01.2008, the petitioner was directed to report to the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Nagercoil. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to work at Primary Health Centre, Thiruvithamcode. However, the respondents took steps to oust the petitioner from service and appoint some other person in his place. Therefore, the petitioner originally filed this writ petition before this Court with a prayer to forbear the respondents from ousting the petitioner from service. However, subsequently, the petitioner amended the prayer by seeking a relief as stated supra. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that the petitioner was used as a Driver purely on exigency under daily wages. The petitioner was provided by the Contractor and he was not appointed by the respondents as a Driver at any point of time. The selection to the post of Forest Guard -cum-Driver, requires the candidates with the minimum qualification viz., a pass in +2 with Physical fitness and the driving licence. As the petitioner failed in +2, his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The salary paid to the petitioner was paid by the Contractor only. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent. 4. As the petitioner failed in +2, his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The salary paid to the petitioner was paid by the Contractor only. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent. 4. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner originally prayed for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from ousting the service of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner had amended the prayer and subsequently seeking for a direction to the fourth respondent to sponsor his name to the post of Driver, the same may be considered and suitable orders can be passed by the fourth respondent. 5. The limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, is only to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the post of Driver under the respondents 1 to 3 by the fourth respondent if the petitioner possesses the necessary qualification to be sponsored to the post of Driver. Therefore, it is needless to say that the fourth respondent has to consider the name of the petitioner and sponsor his name if he possesses the necessary qualifications as and when any such process of recruitment would take place. It is also directed that a fresh representation can be given by the petitioner to the fourth respondent explaining all these facts in detail and also placing the details of all his qualifications. As such, on receipt of the same, it is for the fourth respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law and procedure. 6. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.