Judgment : K. Suguna, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, Revenue Tahsildar, Salem dated 28.09.2012 by which the community certificate given to the petitioner that she belongs to Most Backward Class has been cancelled. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on G.O.Ms.No. 242 Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department dated 28.03.1989, since the petitioner’s community namely, Tholuva Naicker comes under Most Backward Class, she has been given the certificate that she belongs to Most Backward Class. Thereafter, the petitioner registered her name in the Employment Exchange and subsequently, her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and she was also appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd respondent School. However, thereafter, on the steps taken by the School Management, by the impugned order, the community certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Revenue Tahsildar, Salem, the 2nd respondent herein. Challenging the same the present writ petition is filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no notice has been given to the petitioner before, cancelling the community certificate issued to her. 4. However, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, as per G.O.Ms.No. 36 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 27.05.1992, the community to which the petitioner belongs comes under Backward Class. In such circumstance, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the question of issuing notice does not arise at all. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Management also, since the petitioner had produced a bogus certificate that she belongs to Most Backward Class while the community to which the petitioner belongs comes under Backward Class, the question of issuing a notice does not arise at all. Besides, according to the learned counsel, as per G.O.Ms.No. 36 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 27.05.1992, as far as Tholuva Naicker community is concerned, it comes under Backward Class whereas Thozhuva Naicker community comes under Most Backward Class. Besides, according to the learned counsel, as per G.O.Ms.No. 36 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 27.05.1992, as far as Tholuva Naicker community is concerned, it comes under Backward Class whereas Thozhuva Naicker community comes under Most Backward Class. As far as the petitioner is concerned, according to the learned counsel, as per School Records, she belongs to Backward Class i.e., she belongs to Tholuva Naicker community, but, since there is a slight difference between the two words, taking advantage of the same, the petitioner has obtained a false certificate that she belongs to Most Backward Class. Consequently, there is no need to issue notice to the petitioner. 6. As far as the stand taken by the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent with regard to issuing of notice before the cancellation of the community certificate is concerned, we are unable to accept the same. As far as community certificate is concerned, it will have a bearing in every walk of life of the individual, to whom the certificate is issued and the cancellation of the same will have civil consequences. If an order passed by an authority, is having civil consequences, then, certainly, the person against whom the said order has been passed, has to be issued with a notice and also provided with an opportunity. The Honourable Apex Court, in the judgment reported in (2013) 5 SCC 252 (Kalinga Mining Corpn. V. Union of India and Others) has held as hereunder: “12. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the High Court are in accordance with the settled principles of law. Although a large number of cases have been cited by the learned counsel for the parties on either side, but it is not necessary to consider all of them individually as the principles with regard to observance of natural justice are well entrenched in our jurisprudence. Undoubtedly, any decision, even if it is administrative in nature, which causes adverse civil consequences must be passed upon hearing the parties concerned. In our opinion, the Central Government has fully complied with the aforesaid principle in passing the Order dated 27-9-2001.” However, as far as the case on hand is concerned, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner. In our opinion, the Central Government has fully complied with the aforesaid principle in passing the Order dated 27-9-2001.” However, as far as the case on hand is concerned, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner. Consequently, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted in this regard. If an opportunity has been given, the petitioner would have got a chance to prove whether she belongs to Tholuva Naicker community or Thozhuva Naicker community. Since no notice was given, she could not prove the same. 7. The other stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per G.O.Ms.No. 19 Backward Classes, Most Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Department dated 07.05.2007, the power to verify the genuineness of the community certificate has been given only to the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the relevant portion of the said Government Order is as hereunder: “Tamil” However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the Revenue Tahsildar, Salem. Consequently, the same is without jurisdiction. 8. In response to the above contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the District Collector has delegated the power to the Revenue Tahsildar. Consequently, the impugned order is well within jurisdiction. In support of this stand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has relied on the letter of the District Collector dated 23.08.2012. 9. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Management, since the petitioner has produced a bogus certificate the Revenue Tahsildar has got powers to cancel the same. 10. We are unable to accept even this stand of the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Management for the reason that the order of the Revenue Tahsildar cancelling the community certificate issued to the petitioner is dated 28.09.2012 i.e., it has been passed in the year 2012 whereas G.O.Ms.No.19 has been issued in the year 2007 by which the power to verify the genuineness of the community certificate has been conferred only on the District Level Scrutiny Committee. When a specific power has been given by a Government Order to a specific authority, only that authority is empowered to exercise the same. When a specific power has been given by a Government Order to a specific authority, only that authority is empowered to exercise the same. Further, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177 (Meera Sahni V. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Others), if a statute prescribes that a particular act should be done in a particular manner, that should be done only in that manner and not in deviation of the same. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to issue a notice to the petitioner and pass orders thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.