Judgment :- Shaffique, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging an order issued by the Government giving sanction to the Director of Insurance Medical Services to relieve the employees of the State Government service working in ESI Hospital for absorption in the ESI Corporation (hereinafter referred as ESIC) and another Government order giving sanction to the Director of Insurance Medical Service to relieve the employees of ESI Hospital, Paripally and Ezhukone from the State Government Service to be absorbed in ESIC. 2. W.P.(C) No.9877/2011 is filed by the Association of Insurance Medical Officers. The members of the said Association are doctors working in Employees State Insurance (ESI) Hospitals in Kerala. ESIC had decided to transform certain State ESI Hospitals in Kerala to model hospitals to be run by them. On that basis, the ESI Hospital, Ashramam, Kollam was transformed to a model hospital. Ext.P1 is the relevant Circular issued by the Director of Insurance Medical Service in this regard by which the ESI State Service employees were given an option to choose the service to the model hospital of ESIC on deputation. 3. It is said that subsequently ESI Hospital, Udyogamandal was also handed over to ESIC. Ext.P2 is the relevant Circular of the Government. In Ext.P2 also an option was given to persons in ESI state service having two years minimum experience as on 1.1.2006 to join ESIC. 4. ESIC has decided to transform ESI Hospitals at Paripally and Ezhukone in Kollam District, to a medical college and dental college. On the apprehension that the Government was proposing to permit ESIC to absorb only those who were presently working in those hospitals and on deputation, overlooking the seniority and specialization of the entire ESI State service doctors, they submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations. At this stage Ext.P5 order is issued permitting ESIC to absorb those who were presently working in those hospitals and on deputation and the specific order in this regard is Ext.P6 with reference to the Hospitals at Ezhukone and Paripally. 5. The main contention urged is that the rights of the employees of the ESI State service have not been considered and presently by virtue of these orders, the option to join ESIC is available only to those employees/staff who had worked on deputation under the said Hospitals alone. This, according to them, will affect their chances and seniority. 5. The main contention urged is that the rights of the employees of the ESI State service have not been considered and presently by virtue of these orders, the option to join ESIC is available only to those employees/staff who had worked on deputation under the said Hospitals alone. This, according to them, will affect their chances and seniority. According to them, such an approach will also affect the reservation norms. Therefore the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to invite options from all doctors, employees and other staff of ESI State service for joining ESIC Hospitals at Udyogamandal, Paripally and Ezhukone. 6. W.P. 10262/ 2011 is filed challenging the very same orders which are referred as Exts. P3 and P4 in the case and for identical reliefs. This is filed by two doctors, who are working in other ESI hospitals. They have also raised identical grounds challenging the said action of the Government. 7. W.P.(C) No. 11001/2011 is filed by a Nursing Superintendent of ESI Hospital, Feroke, Kozhikode again challenging Exts.P3 and P4 which are the same as the impugned orders in the other writ petitions, on similar grounds. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 9877/2011, inter alia contended that ESIC is an autonomous body constituted under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 coming under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. ESIC is implementing its Social Security Scheme all over country which provides for comprehensive health care service for the benefit of the public at large. They intended to establish a chain of 11 Medical Colleges out of 17 ESI hospitals which are spread over 9 major cities of 9 States in India. ESIC has requested the State Government to hand over ESI Hospitals at Ashramam and Udyogamandal to develop as a model hospital under the Corporation. Subsequently, ESIC had requested to handover the Hospitals functioning at Paripally and Ezhukone to establish medical and dental colleges in the State and the Government had permitted the same as per G.O. (Rt) No.3913/02/LBR dated 30.12.2002. It is contended that Ext.P1 produced by the petitioner was only a guideline issued for the deputation of employees and the order clearly indicated that the existing employees would have to continue their service on deputation. It is contended that Ext.P1 produced by the petitioner was only a guideline issued for the deputation of employees and the order clearly indicated that the existing employees would have to continue their service on deputation. It is only in respect of additional vacancies arising as per ESIC norms, other staff working in insurance medical service department were given a chance to opt and that too only on deputation, as is evident from Ext.P2. Therefore, according to the Government, only those persons working in the particular hospital have the right to exercise the option which is reflected in Exts.P5 and P6. When the hospital itself is handed over to ESIC, as stated in Ext.P5 and P6, it does not impose any additional liabilities upon the employees who were willing to go to ESIC. According to the Government, ESIC is the sole authority to recruit staff in the hospitals and therefore since the hospitals were handed over, the employees of the hospitals were given an option to either work for ESIC or to continue in the State Government. 9. Counter affidavit is filed in W.P.(C) No. 10262/2011 by the 2nd respondent on identical grounds supporting the impugned orders. In W.P.(C) No. 11001/2011 also separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2. 10. Since common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions they are decided together. The documents referred are relating to W.P.(C)No.9877/2011, unless otherwise stated. 11. The question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to challenge Exts.P5 and P6, the relevant Government orders. The point to be determined in the case is whether by issuing Exts.P5 and P6, the Government has the right to prevent the doctors and other staff working in State Insurance Department, from exercising an option to work in the hospitals set up by ESIC or is it possible for the Government to confine the right to exercise such an option only to those working in the hospitals taken over by ESIC. 12. The main ground alleged is that the treating the persons working in the hospitals which is taken over by ESIC differently from the entire ESI State Service is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable as the right for absorption to ESIC hospitals is denied to majority of the ESI State Service doctors and employees. 12. The main ground alleged is that the treating the persons working in the hospitals which is taken over by ESIC differently from the entire ESI State Service is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable as the right for absorption to ESIC hospitals is denied to majority of the ESI State Service doctors and employees. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a classification made in accordance with the rights of such employees and government orders classifying them differently is not on the basis of any intelligible differentia. According to the petitioners to exercise an option to work in ESIC hospitals is always a better option than working in ESI State Service and therefore such an opportunity should be given to all concerned. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments in support of their argument. (i) Centre for Public Interest Litigation & others v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC, 1) relates to importance of public auction, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: "Wherever a contract is to be awarded or a licence is to be given, public authority must adopt a fair, transparent and rational method for making selections so that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition" "While transferring or alienating natural resources like Radio Spectrum in 2G Band, State is duty bound to adopt non-discriminatory method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process." (ii) R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) also relates to importance of public auction, wherein the Supreme Court has held that when tenders are called for running restaurant and snack bars and if tenders are accepted which does not fulfill the requisite qualifications it becomes arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (iii) Union of India v. R.G.Kashikar (1986) 1 SCC, 458) is relating to the proposal to transfer Central Government establishment to State Government. Central Government Employees challenged the said proposal alleging that they would loose all benefits and pay revisions. The Supreme Court held as under: "8. (iii) Union of India v. R.G.Kashikar (1986) 1 SCC, 458) is relating to the proposal to transfer Central Government establishment to State Government. Central Government Employees challenged the said proposal alleging that they would loose all benefits and pay revisions. The Supreme Court held as under: "8. We find it rather difficult to subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Judges that although the petitioners before them i.e. Instructors like the respondents here, as Central Government employees should have also been given the benefit of revised pay scales, the proposal to transfer the establishment of the National Fitness Corps to the State Governments had the effect of decentralising the National Discipline Scheme and the Instructors had become surplus at the Centre. Nor can we support their conclusion that classification between the Central Government employees who work on Central Government activities and those who work on State Government activities, was founded on rational and reasonable foundation and therefore the Instructors belonging to the former class could be treated on a different basis in the matter of their pay scales and other benefits. The underlying fallacy of the reasoning lies in assuming that the Instructors under the scheme ceased to be Central Government employees merely because of the proposal to transfer the establishment of the National Fitness Corps to the State Governments. They continued to be employees of the Central Government till the process of absorption was completed. Until then they were still retained in Central Government service although allocated to different States, and as such employees they were entitled to be treated alike. In order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely: (1) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (2) That that difference must have a rational relation sought to be achieved by the Act. That test is clearly not fulfilled in the case of Instructors under the scheme. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Judges between two classes of Central Government employees i.e. those who work on Central Government activities and those who work on State Government activities, is without any rational basis and the Instructors under the scheme could not be treated as a class distinct and separate. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Judges between two classes of Central Government employees i.e. those who work on Central Government activities and those who work on State Government activities, is without any rational basis and the Instructors under the scheme could not be treated as a class distinct and separate. Such classification or differentiation of the Instructors under the scheme as a class of Central Government employees for depriving them of the benefits in matters relating to employment which expression includes matters relating to salary, periodical increments, leave, gratuity, pension, age of superannuation etc. although they continued to remain Central Government employees till the date of absorption, was per se discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Eknath case does not lay down good law and is accordingly overruled". iv) In P.Venugopal v. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 1 ) Supreme Court held that a legislation aimed at curtailing retirement age of the petitioner was discriminative and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 as there did not exist any intelligible differentia in the classification.. (v) State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.V. Balaram (1972) 1 SCC 660 , was a case relating to admission to Medical Colleges. Classification was on the basis of qualifying examination in spite of conducting a common entrance examination. Supreme Court held that such an action is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. (vi) S.L. Sachdev v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 562 ). This was a case relating to Seniority and promotion of persons from different sources integrated to a common cadre. Supreme court held that their promotion after integration in reference to their respective sources of entry was unconstitutional. In that case the total number of promotional posts available to persons belonging to one of the categories was determined on the basis of 10% of their total strength working in a particular circle. In certain circles in which less than 10 persons were working promotional opportunity was not available. In that context it was held that the classification for promotion was unconstitutional as violating Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 14. The point therefore for consideration is whether the classification now made is reasonable or not. 15. In certain circles in which less than 10 persons were working promotional opportunity was not available. In that context it was held that the classification for promotion was unconstitutional as violating Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 14. The point therefore for consideration is whether the classification now made is reasonable or not. 15. I do not think that the Government had any option in this regard other than to comply with the terms of reference made by ESIC. When a hospital is taken over by ESIC, what has been done by the Government is only giving an option to those working in those hospitals either to continue in State service or to choose the service of ESIC. It may have its own merits or demerits. But the whole concept is to provide hospital as a functioning hospital to ESIC with required staff strength to enable ESIC to develop the hospitals for the intended purpose. 16. Right to claim appointment in ESIC is not a vested right available to any of the employees of ESI State Service. As long as it is not a vested right, it cannot be claimed as of right. Then the only question is whether there is violation of Art. 14 of Constitution of India. As already indicated, no classification is made by the Government between two groups of employees. Government only wanted ESI State Service to continue as such, but in respect of the hospitals which are taken over by ESIC, to avoid disturbance to the doctors and staff working in those hospitals, they were given an option either to choose ESIC or to choose State Service. First of all this is not a classification of the doctors and employees as two different classes. It is only to avoid displacement to the doctors and staff working in the particular hospital from the post which they were working that such an option is given. Merely for the reason that all the State employees were given an option on an earlier occasion does not by itself mean that such an option should be given at all times. That apart, even assuming that there is a classification among the ESI State service employees working in other ESI Hospitals and the ESI Hospitals taken over by ESIC, there is a rational relation behind the same. That apart, even assuming that there is a classification among the ESI State service employees working in other ESI Hospitals and the ESI Hospitals taken over by ESIC, there is a rational relation behind the same. As contended by ESIC they required a functioning hospital and for that purpose displacement of such employees would not be advisable at all. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that there was justification on the part of the Government in confining the exercise of option only to employees working in the respective Hospitals taken over by ESIC. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the factual circumstances involved in the case. Having found so, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Hence the Writ Petitions are dismissed.