JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 judgment of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner was an employee of the 1 st respondent bank, who joined service on 01.09.1976 as attender. Petitioner, at the time of joining the service of 1 st respondent bank, was having the qualification of SSLC. Later he was promoted as Junior Clerk with effect from 01.12.1990 and as Senior Clerk with effect from 01.12.1997. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was holding the charge of Branch Manager. Petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2008. Prior to his retirement, on 27.05.2008 the Administrator who was in charge of the committee reverted the petitioner stating that the promotions granted to the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk and the charge of Branch Manager were without getting exemption from qualifications from the Registrar. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent has reverted him from the post of Senior Clerk all of a sudden, that too without giving sufficient time to the petitioner to raise his objections before the higher authorities. Petitioner submits that he is entitled to get his grades fixed in the post of Senior Clerk with arrears of salary and pensionary benefits. Though the petitioner approached various authorities, the grievance raised by the petitioner was not considered. While so the petitioner made a request before the joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam, thereupon Ext.P1 order was issued holding that as the petitioner was not having requisite qualifications, the promotions granted to him was illegal, but further held that as the petitioner had actually worked in the clerical posts, the excess amount paid as salary need not be recovered and that the salary has to be refixed in the post of Attender, based on which pension has to be fixed. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram filing Ext.P2 petition and the same was considered and the Co-operative Arbitration Court by Ext.P4 award decreed the suit directing to provide the entire retirement benefits with interest treating the petitioner as a Senior Clerk at the time of retirement. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram filing Ext.P2 petition and the same was considered and the Co-operative Arbitration Court by Ext.P4 award decreed the suit directing to provide the entire retirement benefits with interest treating the petitioner as a Senior Clerk at the time of retirement. Aggrieved by the same the 1 st respondent approached the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram filing Ext.P5 appeal, which was allowed as per Ext.P6 judgment setting aside Ext.P4 order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner would contend that it was the duty of the 1 st respondent to verify whether the petitioner was qualified for promotions and if not, necessary exemptions from qualification had to be obtained from the Registrar before promotions were effected. In as much as the promotions have been effected and the petitioner had worked in the said posts, the refixation of pay and allowances in the post of Attender is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Petitioner would further contend that it was the duty of the 1 st respondent bank to obtain necessary relaxation from qualification before granting promotion to the petitioner and not having done so, the petitioner cannot be penalised. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent bank wherein it is contended that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk from the post of Attender in as much as the qualification prescribed for Junior Clerk is Degree with pass in Higher Diploma in Co-operation examination (HDC) or in Junior Diploma in Co- operation examination (JDC). The basic qualification to hold the post of Junior Clerk in the bank is pass in HDC examination or in JDC examination. The petitioner possesses only SSLC and he did not possess HDC or JDC qualification. There is no provision in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or in the Rules conferring power on the Registrar of Co- operative Societies to grant relaxation from passing the basic qualification to make an employee eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk from the feeder category of the bank. There is no provision in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or in the Rules conferring power on the Registrar of Co- operative Societies to grant relaxation from passing the basic qualification to make an employee eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk from the feeder category of the bank. The feeder category Rules framed by the bank and approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in 1984 stipulate that pass in JDC examination is mandatory for promotion to higher posts from the feeder category posts in the bank. In light of the above, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. 6. Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 deals with promotion and Rules 185(8) mandates that it is competent for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to relax the qualification, other than basic qualification and pass in the competitive examination for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases. Rule 185(8)(h) provides that an employee who requires relaxation of educational qualification of graduation may be promoted to a higher post only after getting the order of such relaxation from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Going by the said Rules, though the Registrar has the power to relax qualifications, he cannot relax the basic qualification required for holding the post and that the relaxation if any should be obtained before granting promotion to the employee. True, the management of the bank did not seek for any relaxation from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before granting promotion to the petitioner. But it is also a fact that even if an application is filed seeking relaxation from qualification, since the qualification required was a basic qualification the same could not have been relaxed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 7. It is in the above-said factual situation that the contention of the petitioner that as he is not responsible in not getting relaxation from the Registrar before promotions were effected and since he had in fact worked in the promotion post almost till the date of retirement, his pay as well as pensionary benefits cannot be refixed in the post of Attender, is to be considered. The Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Narendra Singh , 2008 KHC 4396 was considering almost a similar factual situation, wherein the party respondent was promoted and later the department found that the said promotion granted was erroneous in as much as the party respondent did not have the necessary qualification for promotion. The mistake was later found out and he was asked to show cause as to why the promotion given to him erroneously should not be cancelled. The contention raised in the said case was that there is no allegation that the party respondent has concealed facts or the promotion has been obtained by playing fraud and that even assuming that there is a mistake on the part of the department the respondent should not be put to suffer. Whereas the appellant Government took a stand that since the promotion granted was found to be erroneous for want of necessary qualification the department is well within its power to correct the same when it was brought to their notice. After considering the rival contentions the Apex Court in paragraphs 29 to 32 of the said judgment held as follows: “29. As observed by us, Statutory Rules provide for passing of Departmental Examination and the Authorities were right in not relaxing the said condition and no fault can be found with the Authorities in insisting for the requirement of law. In the circumstances, the action of the Authorities of correcting the mistake cannot be faulted. 30. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the Authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. But as observed earlier, in the instance case, in accordance with R.31A of the Fundamental Rules, notice was issued to the respondent employee, explanation was sought and thereafter the order was passed. The said order, in our considered view, was just, proper and in consonance with law and it ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal or by the High Court. To that extent, therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal deserve to be set aside. 31. The said order, in our considered view, was just, proper and in consonance with law and it ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal or by the High Court. To that extent, therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal deserve to be set aside. 31. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant General cancelling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all throughout. 32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs.” (underline supplied) The Apex Court in Narendra Singh ’s case cited supra found that the mistake was on the part of the department in having promoted the party respondent though he was not eligible and qualified, held that mistakes can always be corrected by following the due process of law. It is further held that reverting the party respondent to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and he ought not to have been promoted as Senior Accountant and he will be deemed to have retired as Accountant and his pensionary and retiral benefits would have to be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all throughout. The Apex Court also held that since the party respondent has already worked in the said post the salary paid to him shall not be recovered. In the present case also the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam in Ext P1 has found that the petitioner is not entitled for fixation of pay and pension in the promoted post and the same has to be fixed in the post of Attender, but held that the excess salary paid to him due to the promotions need not be recovered. 8. In the judgment in Narendra Singh ’s case cited supra the Apex Court has held that before any such action of reverting an employee is taken, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken and the principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. It is true that in the case of the petitioner, no such opportunity was given. He was abruptly reverted three days before his retirement. It is seen that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies and found that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion. Petitioner also does not have a case that any relaxation could have been granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies invoking the power under Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 even if the 1 st respondent has requested for the same, in as much as the exemption sought for is an exemption from basic qualification which cannot be granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies invoking the said provision. Since the petitioner has already retired from service as early as in 2008, no purpose will be served by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at this distance of time, as even if exemption was claimed for granting promotion to the petitioner, the same could not have been granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies invoking the power under Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. As there is a specific direction in Ext P1 order not to recover any amount from the salary already paid to the petitioner in the promoted post, the action now initiated as per Ext.P1 is perfectly legal and valid and is in tune with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Narendra Singh ’s case cited supra. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.