P.V. Asha, J.:— The writ petition was filed complaining that petitioner was denied employment from 26.08.2012 onwards and that she was entitled to higher remuneration for the period from 2009 onwards.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was being engaged as a Meter Reader under the second respondent in the Kerala Water Authority from 2009 onwards on contract basis. Petitioner submits that she was engaged through a contractor whereas such engagements were to be made through Kudumbasreee. She also alleged that because of her engagement through a private contractor, she was denied wages on par with those engaged through Kudumbasree. It is stated that she had submitted Ext.P3 complaint on 12.10.2012 after she was denied employment. She has also stated that she had appeared for an interview for engagement as Meter Reader under the Chengamanad Grama Panchayat on 27.11.2012. However she was not selected. She has also complained that persons who were having lesser experience in Meter Reading were included in the select list, though she was sponsored by the Chairperson and member Secretary of the Chengamanad Grama Panchayat, as a result of which she denied employment since 26.08.2012.
3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the Meter Reading work of Kariyad Section was entrusted to a contractor and petitioner was engaged by the said contractor and was being paid by the said contractor. It is stated that second respondent had called for a list of persons for engagement as Meter Readers through Kudumbasree and the CDS Chairpersons of the Grama Panchayats had nominated candidates including the petitioner for selection as Meter Reader. It is stated that 2 persons each were selected from each of the Panchayaths and petitioner was not a person who was selected for engagement through Kudumbasree. It is stated that the candidates who were selected after the interview conducted on 27.11.2012 were engaged for Meter Reading.
4. Petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit. It is seen that petitioner was not successful in the process of selection conducted on 27.11.2012.
5. Therefore there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Petitioner does not therefore deserve any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Comments