SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Writ Petition has called in question the orders passed by the 2nd respondent-Caste Verification Committee (copy of it is Annexure-'d') and order dated 15. 06. 1999, passed by the divisional Commissioner, Mysore, dismissing the appeal against the said order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claiming to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community (hereinafter referred to as the "s. T. Community" for short) had applied for a post of high school teacher against a reserved category post and it appears that the petitioner had also been selected against the reserved post. The 3rd respondent- Appointing Authority had forwarded the caste certificate which had been produced by the petitioner and was issued by the tahsildar of the area concerned and which certified that the petitioner belongs to the S. T. Community to the District Level SC/st Caste and Income Verification Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "committee" for short) for the purpose of verification of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE Committee issued notice to the petitioner and called for relevant school records and also afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to place supporting materials as he deemed fit. The committee on noticing that in the school records where the petitioner had undergone her primary education i. e. , at the Government Higher primary School, Anjaneya Kshetra, K. R. Nagara, that the caste certificate of the petitioner had been mentioned as person belonging to "parivara" caste and as the Committee was of the view that She "parivara" is not a community which is notified as S. T. Community, passed an order and opined that the petitioner was not entitled for claiming appointment as against the post reserved for S. T. Community member. The Committee accordingly cancelled the caste certificate which had been issued by the Tahsildar and intimated the Appointing authority accordingly. ( 4 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal under Rule7 (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward Community (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Amendment rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short), to the divisional Commissioner, Mysore, against the order passed by the committee. ( 4 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal under Rule7 (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward Community (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Amendment rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short), to the divisional Commissioner, Mysore, against the order passed by the committee. The Divisional Commissioner after hearing the representative of the petitioner and looking into the records, also was of the view that the "parivara" community to which the petitioner belongs was not notified as S. T. Community and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. In so doing the Appellate Authority rejected the stand of the petitioner that based on a sale deed dated 26. 7. 1951, wherein the name of the great grand mother of the petitioner was mentioned as person belonging to "nayaka" Community was sufficient to indicate that the petitioner also belonged to "nayaka" Community. The Appellate Authority was of the view that mere suffix of "nayaka" to the caste "parivara" making it "parivara Nayaka" was not conclusive proof to hold that the person belonged to "nayaka" community which was notified as S. T. Community. ( 5 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by this order has approached this Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is heard. Learned Additional government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Appointing Authority at this stage has already made the appointment by filling up of the post by some other person belonging to the S. T. Community. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in this view of the matter it is not necessary to go into the various contentions raised apart from the fact that the petition is without merit and the petition may be dismissed. ( 6 ) SRI C. Jagadish, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Committee has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules and in fact has not conducted the necessary enquiry into the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to "parivara Nayaka" Community which is also a part of "nayaka" community and notified S. T. Community. Learned Counsel brought the attention of the Court to the provisions of Rule 7 of the rules which according to the petitioner contemplates the Committee also examining the aspects of the anthropological and ethnological background of the person belonging to S. T. Community the various customs and the practice prevailing in the Community and as to whether those practice indicate that they all fit into the notified S. T. Community to indicate that the particular of caste or community should also be treated as a part of the notified S. T. Community. In this regard, the learned Counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court the procedure that was required to be followed by the tahsildar before issue of the caste certificate and submits that in the light of the certificate already issued by the Tahsildar indicating that the petitioner is one belonging to S. T. Community it was incumbent upon the Committee to have looked into this aspect even though the petitioner herself had not placed such evidence before the Committee. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel in this regard has also placed reliance on adecision of the Apex Court in the case of KUMARI MADHURI PATIL and ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL development AND OTHERS and has drawn the attention of the court to para 5 of the said judgment. The Rules in fact have been formulated based on the guidelines by the Apex Court in the said decision and as such, the only ground of attack now available to the petitioner to invalidate any orders passed by the Committee or the Appellate Authority is to point out as to how the Committee or the Appeiiate Authority passed orders in contravention procedure contemplated under the Rules. ( 8 ) IT is nodoubt true that the petitioner's school records clearly indicate that parents of the petitioner had declared before the authority that they belong to "parivara" Community. But, it is the stand of the petitioner that the said "parivara" Community is also known as "parivara Nayaka" Community and it is also part of "parivara" Community, which is notified as S. T. Community. ( 9 ) WHETHER the claim of the petitioner is right or not had not been examined by the Committee or the Appellate Authority in the context in which it was canvassed before the Committee and the appellate Authority. ( 9 ) WHETHER the claim of the petitioner is right or not had not been examined by the Committee or the Appellate Authority in the context in which it was canvassed before the Committee and the appellate Authority. For verifying a claim of this nature, the Authority should necessarily go into the various aspects contemplated under rule 7 of the Rules particularly proviso to Rule 7 (2) and give a finding whether the claim of the person is genuine or otherwise. No enquiry has been conducted in this regard and for such purpose, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Rules vitiates the orders passed by the Committee and also the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority also has not examined this aspect of the matter and merely looked in to the order and accordingly confirmed the order of the Committee on the premise that the school certificate showed the petitioner belonging only to "parivara" Community and no enquiry beyond this has been either done or possibility or necessity of such enquiry was considered by the Appellate Authority. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, I am of the view that the orders passed by the Committee and the Appellate Authority are not sustainable and they are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Committee to hold a proper enquiry in accordance with the requirement of the rules, afford an opportunity to the petitioner and also receive such supporting material that the petitioner may place before the committee and pass orders afresh in accordance with statutory provisions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. ( 11 ) IT is however made clear that setting aside the orders of the Committee or the Appellate Authority will not in any way affect the appointment if any already made in respect of the post for which the petitioner had been tentatively selected and in the context of which the Appointing Authority had forwarded the caste certificate to the Committee to ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of such certificate. The appointment to the said post since, already done, shall not be disturbed. The appointment to the said post since, already done, shall not be disturbed. The matter is remanded to the Committee only to enable the petitioner to have an opportunity to place such material and for the Committee to look into-the matter in the manner contemplated by law and if the petitioner is really entitled for such a certificate, so that issue of such certificate is not denied to the petitioner henceforth. Rule issued and made absolute. No costs. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is permitted to file his memo of appearance, within two weeks.