IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 35775 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PRASANNAN S. ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KASARAGOD, KANHANGAD-671 315. 2. VINOD V.L., ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 1 3. VELAYUDHAN NAIR.P. ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.VINODKUMAR SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.LAKSHMI.N.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATION (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. G.SYAMALA, TYPIST, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, KOTTAYAM. 5. A.S.MIRAJ, TYPIST, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, STAFF TRAINING CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. OP.No. 35775 of 2002(H) -2- 6. C.CHANDRIKA, TYPIST, HIGHER GRADE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM. 7. B.N.UBRENDRAN NAIR, TYPIST, HIGHER GRADE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM ADV. MR.B.RAGUNATHAN FOR R4TO7 MR.G.S.MOHANDAS FOR R4 TO 7 MR.V.V.MATHEW FOR R4 TO 7 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P. No. 35775 of 2002 ................................................. Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are assistants working in the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Their grievance in this original petition is regarding the anomally in the Feeder Categories Rules prepared by the 3rd respondent Bank for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager/ PA to MD as between Assistants and Typists/Stenos. According to the petitioners, the post of Typists/Stenos is a lower post to the post of Assistants. In the matter of fixing qualifications for promotion, they cannot be treated equally is the contention of the petitioners. It is further submitted that Typists/Stenos have another exclusive avenue for promotion to a post equivalent to the post of Assistant Manager/PA to MD namely that of Assistant Manager (Fair Copying). The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit-P3 order; ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the inclusion of the posts of Typists/Stenographers in the Feeder Category in Rule 6 of Exhibit-P11 Rules. O.P. No. 35775 of 2002 -2- iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to pass final orders on Exhibit-P4 Revision within a time frame; iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction restraining the third respondent from promoting respondents 4 to 7 to the post of Assistant Manager/ PA to MD pending final decision on Exhibit-P4 Revision;” 2. At the time of filing this original petition, a revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Government was pending in respect of the same subject matter. Subsequent to the filing of the original petition, orders have been passed by the Government on the revision petition and the petitioners have got the original petition amended including a challenge against that order also, which is Ext.P12. 3. I have heard the Government pleader also. 4. The learned Government Pleader points out that the issue involved was considered by this court in O.P. No. 18291 of 2002 and held against the petitioner relying on which only Ext.P12 order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot agitate the same issue again is the contention raised. 5. On a perusal of Ext.P12, I find that it is recorded therein that the 3rd respondent Bank has now decided to amend Clause 6 O.P. No. 35775 of 2002 -3- of the Feeder Category Rules which is the Clause about which the petitioners have raised their grievance. Ext.P12 order was passed as early as on 16.2.2004. Therefore there is no reason for the 3rd respondent bank to delay the amendment process as recorded in Ext.P12 order of the Government. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent bank to complete the amendment process as recorded in Ext.P12 order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs