Judgment :- The petitioner was working in the Revenue Unit of Dharmapuri District and at the time of filing the Original Application, he was working in Thoothukudi District. The petitioners name was included in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars of Dharmapuri District for the year 1992 as per the notification dated 03.02.1993 of the District Collector, Dharmapuri and his name was found in Serial No.26 under B.C. Category. The Petitioner joined as Deputy Tahsildar on 09.02.1993 and he was reverted as Assistant for want of vacancy during the period from 17.02.1993 to 31.12.1994 and 18.03.1995 to 12.09.1995. From 13.09.1995, he has been continuously working as Deputy Tahsildar. A show cause notice dated 09.05.1997 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an order should not be passed for correction of his community as Thuluva Vellala – Backward Class in the service register and why he should not be deleted from the list of Deputy Tahisldars for the year 1992. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.06.1997 through the District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any orders till the date of filing the Original Application. However, the petitioner would contend that by proceedings dated 25.07.1998, the District Collector, Dharmapuri has requested the District Collector, Thoothukudi to make necessary entries in the service register of the petitioner cancelling the entries "Hindu Thuluva Vellalar as B.C.". The District Collector, Dharmapuri has also passed orders deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1992 and requested the District Collector, Thoothukudi by his proceedings dated 25.07.1998 to revert the petitioner to the post of Assistant. 2. The petitioner would contend that as per the certificate dated 11.02.1986, the applicant was declared as belonging to Thuluva Vellala, which is classified as Backward Community. On the basis of the said certificate, the District Collector, Dharmapuri in his proceedings dated 27.10.1980 ordered the correction of community in the service register of the petitioner and also ordered that the change of Backward Class communal status of the petitioner would come into effect on the date of entries in the service register. Thereafter, the District Collector, Dharmapuri also sent a report to the Special Commissioner on 11.06.1996 stating that the petitioner belonged to Thuluva Vellala, which is classified as Backward Class Community. Thereafter, the District Collector, Dharmapuri also sent a report to the Special Commissioner on 11.06.1996 stating that the petitioner belonged to Thuluva Vellala, which is classified as Backward Class Community. The said entry in the service register is now cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for the change of community within five years from the date of entry in service. The petitioner would further contend that when the Government, by virtue of Circular dated 07.01.1984 extended the time limit for correction in the service register upto 13.04.1986 for old cases, the applicant submitted his application in the year 1986. The petitioner also contend that in the case of one A. Raju, the Government issued a Government Order dated 15.12.1992 and he was allowed to change the community even though he did not file any application at all for waiving the condition. In similar case, one Showkath Ali approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 10978 of 1983 and this Court, by order dated 30.03.1984 held that the right of the petitioner will date back to the date of declaration of the community, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 263 of 1985. Based on the same, a Government Order was also passed giving benefit to the said Showkath Ali. Therefore, the petitioners name ought not to have been cancelled by the impugned order. In any event, the impugned order was not legal in view of the fact that having allowed the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the order, after lapse of eleven years, the respondent cannot resort to cancel the order which had deprived the petitioner of his valuable right. 3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed, the learned Government Advocate would contend, based on the written instructions, that though the petitioner joined the service in the year 1961 and his service records was opened in the year 1976, at that time, admittedly he belonged to a forward community. Thereafter, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.437, Social Welfare Department dated 15.05.1972, Thuluva Vellala community was included in the list of Backward clas. Thereafter, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.437, Social Welfare Department dated 15.05.1972, Thuluva Vellala community was included in the list of Backward clas. Therefore, under the then prevailing Rule, the petitioner ought to have sought for amendment in the service register within five years from the date of joining service or atleast from the date of his inclusion of his community in the year 1972 i.e., in the year 1977. Therefore, the petitioners application in the year 1986 is definitely do not merit consideration. Only on 21.07.1986, on the basis of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 11.02.1986, the District Collector issued orders on 27.10.1986 treating him as belonged to Backward community. The respondents have also issued a show cause notice and thereafter passed the order finding that the petitioner was included in the list of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1992 only because of his inclusion as Backward Class in the year 1986. The petitioner could have been included if he was in the other list. It was further contended that even as per the extended time limit, as per the circular, the individuals were given time only upto 13.04.1986, but the petitioner submitted the application on 23.07.1986 and later on the order was passed on 05.05.1986 and only on 05.05.1986, it was received therefore, the order under challenge is legally valid. 4. Heard both sides. The petitioner belonged to Thuluva Vellala community. He entered into service in the year 1969 and his communal status was recorded as "Thuluva Vellalar community" a forward class. His service register opened in the year 1970. Subsequently, as per G.O. Ms.No. 437, Social Welfare Department dated 15.05.1972, Thuluva Vellalar community has been included in the backward communities. Even though the community included in the order in the year 1972, the petitioner did not raise his little finger to include his name in the backward class community till 1986. Only on 21.07.1986, he submitted his application seeking to treat him as Thuluva Vellala community, which is a backward class, as per the Government Order, thereby accord him all benefits as backward class community. In this connection, the petitioner submitted that in respect of any alteration in the service record, be that it may as a wrong entry or otherwise, the period of five years granted has been extended upto 30.04.1986. In this connection, the petitioner submitted that in respect of any alteration in the service record, be that it may as a wrong entry or otherwise, the period of five years granted has been extended upto 30.04.1986. Thereafter only the petitioner filed his application and the application was duly considered and found to be correct. Thereafter, by virtue of proceedings of the District Collector dated 27.10.1986, the petitioners name was ordered to be included as backward community class. 5. The petitioner submitted that even though it is a delayed representation, the circular dated 07.01.1984 clearly says that in so far as rectification are concerned or change in the community, initial period of three years will not apply. The time limit in respect of old case have been extended upto 13.04.1986. The petitioner also relied on the unreported decision of this Court in WP No. 10978 of 2003 wherein, a person, who sought for inclusion of his name in the backward class community pursuant to the declaration made by the Government, was granted by this Court. This Court held that when a persons name is included in respect of a community at a later point of time, it will date back to the date when the original order was passed. In that case, the petitioner therein has approached the concerned authorities in the year 1983, whereas, the Government has issued an order to include backward class community on 30.01.1979. The Government preferred an appeal against this order in WA No. 263 of 1985 and that was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the writ appeal, the Government issued G.O. Ms.No. 1913, Revenue Department dated 28.08.1990 whereby the name of the petitioner in that case was ordered to be included in the list of Deputy Tahsildar in the backward class quota. The petitioner case is squarely governed by the proceedings as regards the order of the Division Bench. It was also contended that one A. Raju, a colleague of the petitioner, was also not included in the denotified Kallar community, which was also after the 1986 deadline, whereas in the year 1992 he was given the benefit by virtue of an order dated 15.12.1998 and his name was also included. It was also contended that one A. Raju, a colleague of the petitioner, was also not included in the denotified Kallar community, which was also after the 1986 deadline, whereas in the year 1992 he was given the benefit by virtue of an order dated 15.12.1998 and his name was also included. Therefore, even though the petitioner filed the present application after the deadline of three months from the original instruction, the petitioner, having been allowed to be included as backward class community in the year 1986, there is no reason or rhyme for the government to cancel the order by the impugned proceedings after a decade. 6. The only reason stated in the show cause notice is petitioner has belatedly submitted his application. It is pertinent to point out that even way back in the year 1986, which is more than 10 years after the inclusion of his name under the backward category, for the preparation of seniority list in the year 1992, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner sought report from the District Collector and the District Collector also stated that as per the earlier proceedings in the year 1986, the petitioner would be entitled to the inclusion of his name in the seniority list of backward class. Therefore, even in the proceedings in the year 1996, it was not contended by the District Collector that the application was submitted and the time is extended in the government letter. It is also to be stated that inclusion of the petitioners name in the seniority lit was made on 03.02.1993. At that time also, it was not in any way considered that the applicant has submitted his application belatedly. Whereas, he was included in the backward community quota pursuant to the change made in the year 1986. For the first time on 09.05.1997, a show cause notice was issued and it is to be pointed out that the show cause notice was also issued, taking into consideration the seniority list prepared by the order dated 03.02.1993. 7. In 1986, the application was made by the petitioner. Immediately in 1986 itself his name has been included in the backward list. In the year 1993 for the year 1992, his name has been included in the list of deputy Tahsildar. 7. In 1986, the application was made by the petitioner. Immediately in 1986 itself his name has been included in the backward list. In the year 1993 for the year 1992, his name has been included in the list of deputy Tahsildar. In 1996 a report was sought for and a report was also given stating that the petitioner is entitled to back ward class quota, but only in the year 1997 in the show cause notice, it was stated that by proceedings dated 31.02.1993, placing him under the Deputy Tahsildar Category is illegal and called upon him to show cause why his name should not be excluded. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply that by virtue of the order passed by the Court, two persons, who were similarly placed, were given the relief. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. In the impugned order, it is stated that after 17 years, the petitioner has come forward with the application. It is to be stated that even in the impugned order, it was not stated that the application is barred, which is submitted on 23.04.1986, but it was entertained. Even thugh it was submitted after lapse of three months, it cannot be now gain said by the Government that it is a belated application. Even the first case, even though he was notified as backward caste in the year 1972, pursuant to the clarification in the year 1984, definitely, the Government itself gave time limit upto 1986 in respect of old case to get it rectified. If the Government however rejected application of the petitioner at an earlier date that it is barred by limitation and it cannot be entertained beyond 30.04.1986, then the petitioner has no case. But having allowed the petitioner and passed an order in the year 1986 and allowed to him to be included in the list during the year 1992, it is not open for the respondents, at this stage, after 11 years to say that the petitioner has given the application for rectification beyond four years. Therefore, the laches is on the part of the respondents for having not rectified the communal status. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.07.1998 is definitely not in accordance with law. The reasons set out by the respondents in the impugned order is not correct. Therefore, the laches is on the part of the respondents for having not rectified the communal status. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.07.1998 is definitely not in accordance with law. The reasons set out by the respondents in the impugned order is not correct. Moreover, in respect of others namely Raju and Showkath Ali, the respondents, in the year 1992 accepted and rectified the mistake, but the petitioner alone has been discriminated. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is legally not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 8. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner obtained interim stay before the Tribunal, continued as Deputy Tahsildar and retired from service. Therefore, at this stage, only notional promotion can be given provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be included in the list of the year 1992. In so far as the question of cancellation of the category of backward class community in Thuluva Vellalar is set aside, it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents to include his name in the panel drawn in the year 1992, if he is otherwise eligible. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.