1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P.(MD).No.1935 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 R.Karuppiah : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, Rep by its Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Thallakulam, Head Post Office Building, Madurai. 2.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Rep by its Registrar, Chennai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Memo No.B5/81/DLGS dated at Madurai 625002, 09.01.2007 and consequential order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the second respondent in O.A.No.181 of 2007 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the post of GDS Branch Post Master with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For Respondent : Mr.B.Nagarajan O R D E R ********** [Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 09.01.2007 and the order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the second respondent in O.A.No.181 of 2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1999, he was appointed as GDS Branch Post Master in Siruvalai Post Office. However, an order of termination dated 09.01.2007 was passed by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner belongs to BC Community and not ST Community. The said order of termination was passed based on the order of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.181 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 05.12.2007, the Central Administrative Tribunal had confirmed the order of termination and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 dismissed the said Original Appeal. As against the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The stand of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that already a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.02.2011 in W.P.(MD).No.6179 of 2011 had quashed the order of the District Level Scrutiny Committee and directed the first respondent herein to refer the Community Certificate of the petitioner to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to find out its genuineness. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since already the order of the District Level Scrutiny Committee was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.02.2011, the termination order, which was passed based on the order of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, cannot be allowed to stand. Based on the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing of the Writ Petition. 4. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, already the District Level Scrutiny Committee has taken a view with regard to the community of the petitioner, and therefore, the first respondent can pass such an order of termination, since the petitioner was appointed under ST quota. Based on the above, the learned counsel for the first respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. We have considered the above submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 6. Admittedly, as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.02.2011, the first respondent has referred the issue relating to the Community Certificate of the petitioner to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to find out its genuineness and the same is pending. When such is the position, based on the orders of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, the order of termination was passed by the first respondent. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent that based on the order of this Court, the issue relating to the community certificate of the petitioner has been referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to find out its genuineness. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that based on the order of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, which was set aside by this Court, if any order is passed, such an order cannot be allowed to stand, since the community certificate of the petitioner has been referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to find out its genuineness. 7. In view of the above, the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the second respondent are set aside and the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, liberty is granted to the first respondent to take appropriate steps basing on the orders to be passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Thallakulam, Head Post Office Building, Madurai. 2. The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. + 1 cc to M/s.Hallmark Associates, Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi, Advocate, SR No.20491 + 1 cc to Mr.A.B.Nagarajan, Advocate, SR No.20384 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.1935 of 2011 27.06.2011 NB RJ/1.7.11 (IT) 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/