Judgment Elipe Dharma Rao 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order, dated 12.11.2009, made in O.A.No.277 of 2008, whereby the original application, which was filed by the first respondent herein against the order, dated 29.01.2008 passed by the respondent therein/petitioner herein directing her to produce the original community certificate to process her case for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent Grade II, was allowed and the respondent therein was directed to promote her to the abovesaid post pursuant to the panel of selection dated 10.05.2006 with effect from the due date with all consequential benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent was initially appointed as Office Clerk on 14.02.1994 in the Headquarters, Personnel Branch, against the Scheduled Tribe quota and she was promoted as Senior Clerk on 09.04.1996 and was further promoted as Head Clerk on 11.01.1999. It is also the case of the petitioner that at the time of initial appointment of the first respondent, she has not produced the original community certificate, but has produced only the xerox copy of the said certificate and pursuant to the same, she has been treated all along her service as a 'Scheduled Tribe employee' and she has also enjoyed the benefits of reservation as Scheduled Tribe and was promoted to various categories, as referred to above. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Vigilance Committee of the Southern Railway, after verification of the community certificate of the first respondent, found that in the school records, her community was mentioned as 'Kurumbar' a Backward Community, whereas in the community certificate of the first respondent, it was mentioned as 'Kurumbans', a Scheduled Tribe community and hence, the matter was referred to the Three Member District Level Vigilance Committee. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur, Vellore District, who has conducted enquiry, as per his report, dated 04.12.2004, has categorically found that the first respondent belongs to 'Hindu Backward Community' only and not 'Hindu Kurumbans', which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur, Vellore District, who has conducted enquiry, as per his report, dated 04.12.2004, has categorically found that the first respondent belongs to 'Hindu Backward Community' only and not 'Hindu Kurumbans', which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the District Level Vigilance Committee, Vellore District, without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupattur, has erroneously held that the Community Certificate produced by the first respondent is genuine, as per order dated 02.05.2007, against which, the Railway Administration has filed W.P.No.25427 of 2008 before the High Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that the first respondent has submitted a representation, dated 22.06.2007, requesting to promote her as Office Superintendent Grade II based on the Three Member District Level Vigilance Committee's report dated 02.05.2007 and the matter has been referred to the Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai, for investigation, on 20.07.2007, as the first respondent did not submit the original community certificate during her appointment on 21.12.1994, which is mandatory for availing the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe community. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the first respondent was advised to submit the original community certificate to process her promotion, instead of submitting the required documents, she has chosen to file O.A.No.277 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the original application by holding that 'if the respondents are not satisfied with the report of the District Vigilance Committee, Vellore and also the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, they were at liberty to refer the matter to the competent authority for determining the correctness of such certificate and without taking any such proceedings, stopping promotion of the applicant to the post of Office Superintendent Grade II after continuation of more than 20 years of service is not at all justified' and directed the Railway Administration to promote the applicant/first respondent herein to the post Office Superintendent Grade II, pursuant to the panel of selection dated 10.05.2006 with effect from the due date with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire materials placed on record. 8. It is seen from the perusal of the records that the writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.277 of 2008, dated 12th November, 2009, which was filed against the order, dated 29.01.2008, to issue a direction to the respondent therein to promote the applicant/first respondent herein to the post of Office Superintendent Grade II, pursuant to the panel of selection dated 10.05.2006 with effect from the due date with all consequential benefits and before the Tribunal, it was contended that the pendency of the verification of the community certificate dated 26.06.1977 is arbitrary, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the other employees, whose community certificates were sent for verification and found by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Vellore, to be genuine on inquiry, have been given promotion vide order dated 20.09.2007 with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits, and as such, the first respondent is also entitled for such benefits. On the other hand, the respondent before the Tribunal contended that the applicant/first respondent herein has not produced the original community certificate at the time of appointment, which is mandatory for claiming the benefits under Scheduled Tribe community. 9. It is also seen from the perusal of the materials that the Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the order impugned in the original application is liable to be quashed on the basis of the District Level Vigilance Committee's order, dated 02.05.2007 and accordingly, set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent therein to promote the applicant/first respondent herein to the post of Office Superintendent Grade II, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 10. 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the very basis to set aside the impugned order and grant the relief sought for in the original application by the applicant/first respondent is the order passed by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Vellore, dated 02.05.2007 and the correctness of the said order is assailed in W.P.No.25427 of 2008 by the Railway Administration before the High Court and a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 08.02.2011, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to go into the genuineness of the community certificate of the first respondent. Therefore, it is contended that in view of the above said order, there is no existence of the order passed by the District Level Vigilance Committee, on the basis of which, the relief is granted in the original application. 11. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. Though notice was served on the first respondent on 23.09.2011, she has not chosen to appear either in person or through a Counsel. As on the date of disposal of the abovesaid writ petition, the District Level Vigilance Committee's order is not in existence and therefore, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustained under law and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.