ORDER Arun Mishra, J. Petitioners in this writ petition are assailing the order of their reversion which has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to them after 9 years of their promotion. It is averred by the petitioners that they are the employees of Bhopal Sahkari Dugdha Sangh and they are working on the post of Sales Promotion Organizers in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,000 - 8,000/-. The management of respondent No. 1 society vests in the Board of Directors. Petitioners were initially appointed as Distribution Clerks in the respondent No. 1 Bhopal Sahkari Dugdha Sangh. After rendering 12 years of the service the petitioners were promoted to the next higher post of "Senior Sales Promotion Organizers" as per orders P.1 and P.2 dated 4-3-1994 and 28-11-1994 respectively. In the orders of promotion a condition was imposed that in case posts are not made available in the approved administrative set up of respondent No. 1, the petitioners would be reverted to their original post and pay scale. Petitioners categorically submit and assert that as per the condition imposed in the order of promotion, they can be reverted only in case posts on which they are presently working is disapproved by the competent authority. It is submitted that the competent authority has not disapproved the administrative set up of respondent No. 1 organization. In pursuance of the orders of promotion dated 4-3-94 and 28-11-94 the petitioners have joined on the respective posts and since then are regularly working. They have by now rendered more than 9 years of continuous services on the promotional post. A resolution has been passed on 14-8-2003 by the Board of Directors whereby a decision was taken to revert the petitioners and other similarly situated employees to their original post. No reason whatsoever was assigned for taking such a decision. In spite of filing an application (P.3) on 30-10-2003, copy of resolution has not been supplied. Resolution is illegal and arbitrary. Such decision could not have been taken after 9 years and administrative set up has not been disapproved. No show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was afforded. The petitioners along with 15 other similarly situated employees filed a revision u/s 80A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhopal. No show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was afforded. The petitioners along with 15 other similarly situated employees filed a revision u/s 80A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhopal. Petitioners assailed the resolution. Registrar was competent to set aside the resolution u/s 80A of the Act. The Registrar initially stayed the resolution as per order (P.5) dated 16-9-2003. The respondents No. 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of proceedings u/s 80A of the Act. It was contended on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 that since the orders of reversion have already been passed, the petitioners have the remedy to raise a dispute u/s 55(2) of the Act. The Joint Registrar as per order (P.7) dated 14-10-2003 held that since the orders of reversion have already been passed, the petitioners may raise the dispute u/s 55(2) of the Act of 1960. It is submitted that Joint Registrar has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 80A of the Act. Resolution dated 14-8-2003 was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. The subsequent managing committee cannot annul, vary or reverse the resolution passed by an earlier managing committee without obtaining approval of the Registrar as required u/s 49B of the Act. The petitioners submit that they were promoted on a clear stipulation in order that they would be reverted only in the event promotional posts are not made available in the administrative set up. The administrative set up of respondent No. 1 has not been disapproved till date, meaning thereby that posts on which the petitioners are working are still very much available, therefore, there appears to be no justification for taking a decision to revert the petitioners after a lapse of more than 9 1/2 years, thus, the resolution passed on 14-8-2003 is illegal and arbitrary. There would be reduction in the salary of the petitioners between Rs. 1500 - 3,000/- per month. A return has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. It is contended in the return that the petitioners have the remedy u/s 80Aof the Act before the Registrar. Respondents are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The conditional promotion was granted with clear stipulation that the promotions were in anticipation of approval of the set up. A return has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. It is contended in the return that the petitioners have the remedy u/s 80Aof the Act before the Registrar. Respondents are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The conditional promotion was granted with clear stipulation that the promotions were in anticipation of approval of the set up. It is submitted that the set up has not been approved by the Registrar. The conditional promotion does not confer any right and the set up has not been approved, the petitioners have been reverted to their original posts as per the stipulation mentioned in the order of promotion. As such resolution has been rightly passed. The decision could have been taken after 9 years. No show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was necessary or mandated as promotion itself was conditional. The dispute can be adjudicated u/s 55 of the Act. Resolution (R.1) dated 14-8-2003 has been placed on record. Shri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that it is a case where there is flagrant violation of the condition on which promotions were made. So far, no disapproval has been made and the fact that matter is still pending consideration for approval with Registrar has been mentioned in resolution (R.1). It is further submitted that mind has not been applied. Resolution has been passed in a mechanical manner, what is sanctioned staffing pattern, how many persons are working and the requirement has not been taken into consideration. No show cause notice was issued, thus, the resolution (R.1) is illegal, arbitrary. It is violative of principles of natural justice and provision contained in section 49B of the Act. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that petitioners have the alternative remedy of filing a revision before State Govt., thus, writ petition should not be entertained. He has further submitted that promotion order itself was conditional and the resolution (R.1) dated 14-8-2003 is just and proper and no interference is called for in this writ petition. It is true that petitioners have the alternative remedy of filing revision against the order. The availability of alternative remedy is not absolute bar in case of patent violation of law or statutory provision. It is true that petitioners have the alternative remedy of filing revision against the order. The availability of alternative remedy is not absolute bar in case of patent violation of law or statutory provision. It is apparent that petitioners were promoted 9 years before in anticipation of approval of set up as apparent from the condition mentioned in the orders of promotions. Reading of the resolution (R.1) dated 14-8-2003 indicates that the set up has been forwarded for approval before the Registrar and matter is still pending consideration, thus, the exigency of reversion in the event of disapproval of the set up has not yet taken place. Petitioners have rendered the services for about a decade on the promotional post, have drawn their salaries and all of a sudden without issue of any show cause notice the decision of the previous body has been termed to be illegal. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondents in case they wanted to review the order, to take action in accordance with law, if any resolution was to be modified by successor committee. It is provided u/s 49B of the Act that previous sanction in writing of the Registrar has to be obtained. In the instant case, the orders P.1 and P. 2 of promotion which were based on a resolution passed by the existing committee, have been recalled, in the circumstances, petitioners were entitled for issue of show cause notice before passing order of their reversions as Distribution Clerks. They were holding the promotional posts of Senior Sales Promotional Organizers for the last nine years. The order has the effect of reduction of the salary and such an order of reversion in the facts of the case could not have been passed without issuing show cause notice, particularly when disapproval has not been granted to the set up by the Registrar, on which condition the orders could have been recalled. The matter is pending consideration of Registrar has been mentioned in resolution (R.1). As the matter of approval is still pending consideration before the Registrar, the Registrar ought to have decided it. In the circumstances, the resolution (R.1) dated 14-8-2003 cannot be said to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice. There is flagrant violation of section 49B of the Act which is statutory provision. As the matter of approval is still pending consideration before the Registrar, the Registrar ought to have decided it. In the circumstances, the resolution (R.1) dated 14-8-2003 cannot be said to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice. There is flagrant violation of section 49B of the Act which is statutory provision. In Ramesh Kumar and another vs. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mandsaur and others. 1985 RN 423, this Court has held that once promotions have been made by predecessor committee, it was incumbent at successor committee to follow Rules and provisions of section 49B of the Act, which enjoines previous sanction to be obtained of Registrar before modifying or annulling resolution of promotion passed by predecessor Committee. Further, it has been laid down that an opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to affected persons. It is laid down in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 thus: 12. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the action taken by the respondents is punitive in nature. Reduction in rank could not have been done without following Rules 46 and 47 of the Rules. These rules lay down the punishments and procedure for imposing penalties. If the successor committee wanted to cancel the promotions made by its predecessor committee it was incumbent on the committee to follow the aforesaid rules as also section 49B of the Act, which enjoins upon such successor committee to obtain previous sanction of the Registrar before modifying or annulling the resolution of promotion passed by the predecessor committee. It is not the respondent's case that he had obtained any such previous sanction in writing of the Registrar nor any such sanction is placed on record. The petition deserves to succeed on this short ground alone. The next submission made by Shri Sethi is about the respondent action of cancellation of promotions made by the predecessor body at the instance of the respondent No. 4, the Joint Registrar. Para 13 of the petition is very specific about it. However, the reply thereto in the return is laconic one. All that it says is that the Board has rightly exercised its powers. The allegation is about the Joint Registrar, who though served does not file any counter affidavit. The concerned respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 do not specifically controvert the allegation of extraneous considerations in cancelling the promotions made earlier. All that it says is that the Board has rightly exercised its powers. The allegation is about the Joint Registrar, who though served does not file any counter affidavit. The concerned respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 do not specifically controvert the allegation of extraneous considerations in cancelling the promotions made earlier. The resolution referred to in the communication is not supplied to the petitioners. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the respondent have acted on extraneous considerations in cancelling the earlier promotion order. No provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court showing that the Joint Registrar can issue such instructions in matters of promotions to the successor Board. It is for the successor Board to approach the Registrar u/s 49B of the Act for written permission to annul any resolution passed by the predecessor Board. But such is not the case here. It is not denied that the order, Annexure 6 has been passed by the respondents without affording the petitioners any opportunity of being heard against the proposed action. It is a blatant violation of principle of natural justice. The respondent's case that the Board who promoted the petitioners had no valid authority to pass an order of promotion, has already been found to be baseless. The petitioners deserve to succeed in their petition for the foregoing reasons. In the circumstances, the resolution (R.1) is set aside. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are free to take steps in accordance with law. Registrar is also expected to deal with the matter of approval of the set up within 3 months and to pass specific order in this regard. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Final Result : Allowed