IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 15335 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.K.RAJEEVAN, SENIOR LAB ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL COMPLEX, CENTRE ADVANCED MEDICAL SERVICES LTD.NO.4386, PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 2. K.V.LEKSHMI, DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 3. BEENA M., NURSING ASSISTANT GRADE - I, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 4. K.N.KRISHNAVENI, RECEIPTION ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 5. P.V.MAHESH KUMAR, DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 6. V.V.MADUSOODHANAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE WORKERS FEDERATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE UNIT, PARIYARAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL COMPLEX CENTRE ADVANCED MEDICAL SERVICES LTD. NO.4386, PARIYARAM, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. W.P.(C). NO.15335/2008-A: 3. STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VASANTHA K., RECEPTION ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 5. T.M.MANOHARAN, DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 6. MADHUSOODANAN V.V., JUNIOR LAB ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 7. K.P.SREEDHARAN, RECEIPTION ASSISTANT, K.S.H.C., PARIYARAM, KANNUR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS, R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15335/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES OF THE R.2. WHO SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATIONS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF ONE OF SUCH COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE P.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DTD. 01/04/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P.4. BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.15335 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners 1 to 5 are employees of the second respondent. The sixth petitioner is the General Secretary of a labour organization. The complaint is regarding the selection for JDC Course from among the staff of the second respondent. Petitioners contend that respondents 4 to 7 are being selected. With the counter affidavits on board stating that the seventh respondent is not selected whereas respondents 4 to 6 and two others have been sent for training, by now, only a couple of months are left for the training to be over this year. 2. The issue raised is that petitioners 1 to 5 are senior to respondents 4 to 7, going by Ext.P1. Even disputing this statement, the second WPC15335/08 -:2:- respondent employer has contended that there is no law prescribing seniority as the criterion for sending its employees for JDC Course and that therefore it should have the administrative freedom to choose those, who could be sent for JDC Course, having regard to the establishment needs, which may arise owing to the absence of those, who would go for JDC Course in one lap. It therefore contends that the overall requirement of the establishment has to be taken note of, in deciding as to who shall be sent for JDC Course during a particular year. 3. The third respondent State Co-operative Union, which conducts the JDC Course, has filed a statement to the effect that seniority among the employees of an establishment is a criterion to send persons for JDC Course and seniors among those who apply for JDC Course in an year, from an establishment is considered for intake to the WPC15335/08 -:3:- course. 4. There is no provision in the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act or Rules providing any yardstick for intake to JDC Course. The State Co- operative Union also does not show any statutory regulation for the guidance of the co-operative establishments in the matter of choosing personnel for JDC Course. But an overall view of the Act, Rules etc. would show that JDC is a qualification prescribed for employment in different categories in co-operative establishments for consideration for promotion to higher categories. Viewed in that angle, it may not be unreasonable to say that seniority among the employees in an establishment; at least from among those who apply for being considered for JDC Course in a particular year (batch), ought to be a relevant criterion. But, in the absence of any statutory provision by way of Act, Rules or Regulations, such a clause cannot be WPC15335/08 -:4:- imposed on an establishment merely on the basis of jurisprudential wisdom because, administrative management of an establishment is one that has to be left exclusively to the wisdom of the organization, namely the establishment. In that angle, when the second respondent states that it adopts a policy of sending persons for JDC course after ascertaining whether the absence of such personnel in the establishment for the period of the course would or would not be detrimental to the interest of the establishment, it cannot be treated as administrative perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The issue in question could be well managed either by establishments having their own policies, which are made known to the employees or by the State Co-operative Union coming out with necessary guiding regulations, which could even be WPC15335/08 -:5:- made the yardstick for selection. As of now, in the absence of any such provision, it may not be possible for this Court to issue any direction, as prayed for. However, this writ petition is ordered directing that, the petitioners, if they apply, would be considered by the second respondent along with other applicants for the next batch, provided, they are eligible for being considered. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.