Judgment :- By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from ousting the petitioner from service without following the due process of law. 3. The petitioner states that he was appointed as a part time clerk at Kuppanur Village Panchayat in Salem District and the said appointment was made by the Panchayat by passing an appropriate Resolution. He would further state that in pursuance of the order of appointment, he joined duty and he was also paid consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/-every month. Now the apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents are likely to oust him from service without following due process of law. 4. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein, the second respondent has stated that the Resolution said to have been passed by the Village Panchayat, appointing the petitioner as a part time clerk, was later on cancelled by the District Collector, Salem by Roc.No.5291/2006/A5 dated 012. 2006 under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. Admittedly, the order of appointment was issued by the Village Panchayat. The said order came to be issued in pursuance of the Resolution said to have been passed in Village Panchayat. But, some of the members made a representation to the District Collector that the said Resolution was not passed actually and it was only a fabricated one. After holding enquiry, it appears that the District Collector has cancelled the said Resolution. 7. Now, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, in pursuance of the order of the District Collector canceling the Resolution, the second respondent has proposed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass necessary orders after affording opportunity. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the petitioner would not be ousted from service without following the due process of law as provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The said statement of the learned counsel for the second respondent is recorded. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the petitioner would not be ousted from service without following the due process of law as provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The said statement of the learned counsel for the second respondent is recorded. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the second respondent to pass final orders, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including service of copy of the order of the District Collector to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, he is at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.