THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32599 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner questioned order, dated 03.10.2010, passed by the second respondent – Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore, in D.Dis(C5)1426/2010. The petitioner is presently working as Civil Assistant Surgeon under the control of the fourth respondent - Director of Medical and Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. He was selected as such in the quota of Scheduled Tribe based on the certificate issued by the fifth respondent - Tahsildar, Bogole Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, certifying that he belongs to the community of Yerukala, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent initiated proceedings for verification of caste status of the petitioner. Based on the findings recorded by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Visakhapatnam, dated 23.09.2010, order, dated 03.10.2010, was passed by the second respondent cancelling caste certificate No.147/1996, dated 21.08.1996, issued by the fifth respondent in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that as against the same, the petitioner availed remedy of appeal as provided under Section 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). He also filed an application therein for grant of interim orders as provided under Section 7(4) of the Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the first respondent without giving him proper opportunity and without verifying his community in proper perspective. It is submitted that the District Level Scrutiny Committee has not given opportunity to the petitioner before recommending for cancellation of his caste certificate. It is also submitted that though the petitioner filed application in the appeal filed by him before the first respondent, for grant of interim orders, the same has not been taken up. With regard to validity of the findings recorded by the second respondent in the impugned order, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the matter in view of pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. As it is stated that there is no proper opportunity provided to the petitioner, he filed appeal before the first respondent as early as on 26.11.2010 and the appellate authority has not even taken up the matter for passing appropriate interim orders, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent/appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.11.2010 against the impugned order, as expeditiously as possible. As the petitioner is in service and the impugned order passed by the second respondent is subject matter of the appeal, there shall be suspension of the impugned order till disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th DECEMBER, 2010. kvni