Judgment : Contempt Petition No.424 of 2006: Review Application No.40 of 2006: (Prayer: Review Application filed to review the order dated 23. 2006 made in W.P.No.1015 of 2006.) Common Order: There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. G. Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 23. 2006, made in W.P.No.1015 of 2006. 3. This Court by the order, dated 23. 2006, made in W.P.No.1015 of 2006, had directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion, without reference to the pendency of the proceedings for verification of his community certificate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. At the stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the District Level Vigilance Committee, authorised to verify the community certificate of the petitioner, had cancelled his community certificate, on 15. 2007. Pursuant to the cancellation of the community certificate, the petitioner was dismissed from service, on 16. 2007. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.22820 of 2007, challenging the cancellation of the community certificate, had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 29. 2008. In such circumstances, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Review Application No.40 of 2006 had submitted that in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 29. 2006, made in W.P.No.22820 of 2007, the review application may be dismissed as not pressed. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 7. In view of the endorsement made on behalf of the petitioner, the Review Application stands dismissed as not pressed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.