Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had completed M.Com., degree in the year, 1994, in Periyar E.V.R.College, Trichy and he had also completed his Bachelor of Library and Information Science (B.L.I.S.) in the year, 2001. Thereafter, he had completed Master of Library and Information Science (M.L.I.S.) in the year, 2002. He had also studied the Diploma in Pri-primary Teacher Training Course and had completed the said course, in the year, 2005. While so, as there was a vacancy for the post of Village Assistant, in the Thalavai Village Panchayat at Senthurai Panchayat Union, he had submitted an application to the Village Panchayat for being appointed in the said post. 3. It has also been stated that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community. The Thalavai Village panchayat had passed a resolution, on 18.6.2009, appointing the petitioner as the Village Assistant. The said resolution had been forwarded to the Block Development Officer, Senthurai, on 23.6.2009, by the President of the Thalavai Village Panchayat, for the necessary approval. The Block Development Officer, Senthurai Panchayat Union had approved the said resolution. Thereafter, the petitioner had joined in the said post. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 10.7.2009, cancelling the appointment order, invoking Section 200 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the first respondent does not have any power, under Section 200 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to cancel the resolution of the Thalavai Village panchayat, dated 18.6.2009. Further, the first respondent could have passed the said order only under Section 202 of the said Act. He had also submitted that, according to clause 2 of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the first respondent ought to have given Thalavai Village panchayat an opportunity to submit its explanation before cancelling the resolution, dated 18.6.2009. He had further submitted that the age limit for appointment of candidate would not be applicable to the petitioner, since he belongs to the scheduled castes community and as he has done a post graduate degree in Commerce. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 5. He had further submitted that the age limit for appointment of candidate would not be applicable to the petitioner, since he belongs to the scheduled castes community and as he has done a post graduate degree in Commerce. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the first respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the village panchayat, by calling for an explanation before cancelling the resolution, dated 18.6.2009. Without going into the other aspects in the matter, this Court finds it is appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, since no such opportunity had been given to the Thalavai Village panchayat, as per clause 2 of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, before the resolution of the Thalavai Village panchayat, dated 18.6.2009, had been cancelled. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the first respondent to give an opportunity to the Thalavai Village panchayat before the resolution of the Thalavai Village panchayat is sought to be cancelled. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.