IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 36101 of 2001(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. M.A. RADHAMONY, PEON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, AYOOR BRANCH, AYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 2. K.K.AMMINI, PEON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KAREELAMUKKU BRANCH, KAREELAMUKKU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPEATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI FOR R1, R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 36101 of 2001(W) APPENDIX PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.2000. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.2.2001 ADDRESSED TO THE AMENDMENT TO FEEDER CATEGORY SUB RULES OF THE BANK, ALONG WITH RESOLUTION NO. 122(1) DTD. 28.12.2000 ANNEXED THERETO. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 14.3.2001. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 12.11.2001. EXT.P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN CMP NO.58074/2001 IN O.P. NO. 35565/2001 DATED 22.11.2001. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P. No. 36101 of 2001 ................................................. Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are challenging Ext.P4 order whereby they have been reverted from the post of peons to the post of part-time sweepers. That order related to several persons including petitioners. Some others similarly placed like the petitioners had also challenged the very same order in O.P. No. 35565 of 2001 in which this court on 20.2.2002 passed the following judgment: “ Ext.P4 is under challenge. One of the main grounds taken in this original petition is that the said order, which has the effect of reversion, was not passed after hearing the petitioners who are the affected parties. That position appears to be true from the records. Therefore, I quash Ext.P4. But it is made clear that it will be open to the respondents to take appropriate action after complying with the principles of natural justice. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the original petition before the respondents.” In view of that judgment, this original petition also is disposed of on the same terms. Ordered accordingly. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs