THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 Dated 30th December, 2011 Between: M.Koteswara Rao …Petitioner And The District Collector, Guntur and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Ravi Mohan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Dantu Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav The Court made the following: ORDER: The internal correspondence between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 is questioned in this writ petition. By the impugned letter addressed by respondent No.1, he has opined that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner is not genuine as the same was not entered in the caste certificate issue register and that the petitioner belongs to Boya-Valmiki which comes under BC-A category but not ST. It is also stated therein that in the school records of the petitioner, his caste is noted as Valmiki which comes under BC-A. Purporting to act on this letter, respondent No.2 has removed the petitioner from employment. In my opinion, the letter addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.4 does not create a cause of action for the petitioner to avail the remedy of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the said letter, the District Collector has merely expressed his opinion on the petitioner’s caste certificate and the said certificate is neither cancelled by the said proceedings nor has the District Collector requested respondent No.4 to take action against the petitioner for removal from employment. Unless and until the opinion of respondent No.1 has culminated into a decision leading to cancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate, the impugned letter remains only the opinion of respondent No.1 and nothing more. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to adjudicate on the validity of the impugned letter. The petitioner is permitted to work out his remedies if respondent No.4 has acted upon the impugned letter of respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 21.07.2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.17764 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th December, 2011 VGB