IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2996 of 2009 Between: P. Srinivasulu … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: None Counsel for respondents 2-4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 5&6: Ms. A.V. Vijaya Kumari for Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2996 of 2009 ORDER:- Feeling aggrieved by rejection of his stay application vide Memo No.731/CV.2/2009-1, dated 05.02.2009, of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Claiming that the petitioner belongs to Kondakapu community, he has secured the job of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the Central Reserve Police Force. The community certificate of the petitioner was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee on whose report respondent No.2 passed order dated 11.09.2008 cancelling the said certificate by holding that the petitioner does not belong to Kondakapu community. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal having been rejected, he filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the impugned memo shows that except stating in the subject on the top of the order that the stay has been rejected, the order proper does not either indicate such rejection or reasons for such rejection. It shows that parawise remarks have been called for on the appeal filed by the petitioner. This Court, by order, dated 16.02.2009, has suspended the order of respondent No.2 cancelling the petitioner’s community certificate. The said order is in force for more than two years. Even though on the previous occasion, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare has taken adjournment to report to the Court on the stage of the appeal, he is unable to specify the stage of the appeal before respondent No.1. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the appeal is still pending. Since the appeal is pending before respondent No.1 and the interim order granted by this Court is in force, pending the Writ Petition, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 disposes of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Till disposal of the appeal, interim order, dated 16.02.2009, shall be continued. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.3847 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3786 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.07.2011 ES