Brief averments in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was engaged as a social worker under the 'COCHIN URBAN POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT (CUPR Project)' on contract basis, since 1998 upto 31.3.2004. It is stated that the petitioner was the senior most social worker in the Project and the respondents 3 to 6 were her juniors. During June 2004, by virtue of Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent had absorbed service of 8 persons, who were working as juniors to the petitioner in the CUPR Project, in a new project called 'Poverty Alleviation of Mattanchery (PAM)'. But name of the petitioner was not included in the said list. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in a complaint, which was disposed of through Ext.P6 order recording the submission made on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner's name has been placed before the council for appointment and after recommendation of the council her name will be submitted to the Government for approval. But against such undertaking made, candidature of the petitioner was rejected by virtue of Ext.P8 letter stating that the council of the 2nd respondent had taken a decision not to appoint the petitioner as Community Organiser on contract basis. The petitioner points out that 6 other persons who were working in the CUPR Project were subsequently regularised in the Government service as per Ext.P7 order and that the petitioner was discriminated without any valid reasons. It is contented that the claim of the petitioner for further contract appointment was also rejected without any valid reasons. Hence the petitioner is approaching this court seeking to quash Ext.P8 order and seeking direction to appoint her in the post of Social Worker under the 2nd respondent. 2. When the case came up for consideration on 28.5.2007 this court directed the 2nd respondent to file an affidavit stating as to why the petitioner was not selected for re-engagement when her junior colleagues were given re-appointment. Pursuant to such direction the 2nd respondent had filed an affidavit on 11th June, 2007 . It is mentioned that the petitioner was engaged in the CUPR Project purely on a contract basis along with 20 other persons, for a period of six months. After completion of six months they were terminated. Thereafter further appointments were given on executing fresh contracts. The contract was terminated as on 31.3.2004 when the new scheme was introduced (PAM Scheme). The council of the 2nd respondent had selected 8 persons to be engaged, on the basis of efficiency and ability to work among public. Though the name of the petitioner came up for consideration before the council, her candidature was not accepted due to pendency of several complaints received by the 2nd respondent. Exts.R2(4), R2(4)(a) and R2(5) were produced as copies of certain complaints received. Under such circumstances, the council took a resolution after considering her efficiency and ability to work among people. It is stated that the council of the 2nd respondent has got absolute powers in selecting persons to be engaged on contract basis.
3. While considering the issue involved, it is noticed that the petitioner cannot claim regularisation or continued engagement on contract basis on the basis of any rights accrued on her. It is not disputed that the prior engagement was purely on contract basis. Therefore the petitioner cannot seek any claim for further appointment or regularisation based on such appointments. Hence this court do not find any valid ground existing to interfere with the rejection of candidature made by the council with respect to her re-engagement on contract basis.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P6 order passed by the Ombudsman to content that the 2nd respondent cannot withdraw from the undertaking made with respect to engagement of the petitioner. He had placed reliance on a decision of this court in Ratnakaran v L B S Centre For Science and Technology [2014 KHC 2518,]. But on a perusal of Ext.P6 it is evident that, what was undertaken before the Ombudsman is that the petitioner's name will be placed before the council for appointment and after recommendation of the council, her name will be submitted to the Government approval. It is evident that the name was placed for consideration of the council. But the council had rejected the same. Hence no direction can be issued based on any undertaking made before the Ombudsman.
5. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek re-engagement if any similar project is continuing or introduced under the 2nd respondent Corporation. It will be left open to the 2nd respondent to consider the claim for engagement on contract basis, if any such claim is made .
Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observation.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
SKV