IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27918 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BINDU R.NAIR, D/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, MATHIRAMPILLIL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. MARINA MATHEW, THANNIPPARAYIL HOUSE, KALKUNDU P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM. 3. ISMAIL.K, MANGATTU HOUSE, CALICUT AIR PORT P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMED SHABEED.P, PAZHEERI HOUSE, KUTTALUNKAL, CHIRAYIL POST, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. KAVITHA PADMANABHAN, KAVYA KEERTHI HOUSE, NEAR VISHNU TEMPLE, PARAMBIL KADAVU, PARAMBIL P.O., CALICUT. 6. RASHMI SOLAMAN, PAZHAMBASSERIL HOUSE, ARTHUNGAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 7. SHAMEER.K.P., DARUL HUDA HOUSE, ERAMALAPO, CALICUT DISTRICT. 8. VRIND.V, MOHANALAYAM, MEKKUNNATHUPARAMBA, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 9. O.P.SHIYAD, KOONARI COTTAGE, BAYPORE P.O., CALICUT. 10. MANZOOR ALI SALIH.K.T., MANGATTU HOUSE, CALICUT AIR PORT P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT AUTHORITY, KARIPPUR, REPRESENTED BY AIR PORT DIRECTOR, CALICUT AIR PORT, MALAPPURAM. 2. AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, IST FLOOR, TRANSPORT WORKSHOP BUILDING, AIR INDIA, GSD COMPLEX, SAHAR, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI. 3. UNION OF INDIAN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, NEW DELHI. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASGI FOR R3 SRI.GOPINATHA MENON, FOR R2 SRI.S.SAJIV, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27918 of 2009 H `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are working as Ramp Service Agents on contract basis in the Calicut International Air Port. They were originally engaged by one Jet Air Port Services Limited, a sub contractor of the 2nd respondent. They are continuing in service. The 2nd respondent has now initiated steps, as evidenced by Ext.P2, to select appropriate persons as Ramp Service Agents. The petitioners are also participating in the interview. But, they have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to give them preference in the group discussion and interview being held as part of the selection process. 2. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the petitioners were engaged only on a contract basis. They cannot claim any preference when they aspire for regular recruitment. There is no statutory provision enabling such claim. The fresh recruitment is also on a contract basis. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) aks