IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19013 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.ANNAPOORNESWARI, RESIDING AT KALTHIPARAMBIL, HOUSE NO.1/1689, CHERATTAPALAM, KOCHI-682 001. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ SRI.V.AMARNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, (KERALA), DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, VYPEEN, AZHEEKAL P.O. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER O/O.THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).19013/2010 ....................... Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner's grievance is that overlooking her seniority in registration, 2nd respondent has sponsored candidates in response to a requisition made by the 3rd respondent for filling up the post of part time contingent employees. According to the petitioner, her registration with the Employment Exchange was on 8.8.1980 and that Sl.Nos.1 to 3, mentioned in paragraph 5 in the writ petition have obtained registration only in 1981 and that they have been sponsored to the 3rd respondent. 2. On instructions the learned Government Pleader submits that there is no candidate with the name Meena was registered or sponsored. Insofar as Sl.Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that their registrations were on 12.12.1977 and 5.6.1980. Evidently therefore, these candidates are seniors to the petitioner and if they have been sponsored, petitioner can have no grievance. Insofar as the other six candidates are concerned, their registration is in Kakkanad W.P.(C).19013/10 2 Employment Exchange. Since seniority is Employment Exchange wise, petitioner can have no grievance about the sponsorship of other candidates even if their registration is on a later date. 3. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner, based on which the writ petition is filed, that her seniority has been overlooked is factually incorrect. I see no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs