ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in this writ petitions are inter-woven to each other, both the writ petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. 2. The writ petition in W.P. (MD).No.7323 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 31.05.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to follow the procedure as directed by this Court in W.P.No. 8576 of 2007 (O.A.No.430/2002), dated 11.8.2009 and to reconsider the three appointments made by the respondent after 06.05.2000 to accommodate in the appropriate rotation. Similarly, the petitioner has also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.9754 of 2010 wherein he sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to re-fix the salary of the petitioner at the time scale of Rs. 8000/- 275 -13500/ as per GO.MS.No.16, Rural Development (PA.A.5), dated 29.1.1998 with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. 13.07.2001 and grant all the benefits including pension, terminal benefits, rural allowances, increment, special pay to Medical Officers etc. and further direct to pay the arrears of salary and the benefits entitled to so far. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is a holder of B.S.M.S. Medical Degree in siddha and was eligible for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Siddha) in Government hospitals and dispensaries. He further states that there were five posts of part time Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) in Sivaganga Panchayat Union. The Panchayat Union addressed a letter to the concerned Employment Exchange calling for the names of the qualified persons for the post of part Time Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha). In the said letter, the Panchayat Union made it clear that the candidates should belong to open category (General Turn). Accordingly, the Employment Exchange sponsored the name of the petitioner. Based on such sponsorship, he was interviewed and selected and an appointment order dated 12.07.2001 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent. 5. While so, the petitioner was issued the impugned order dated 26.12.2001 terminating his service with effect from 26.12.2001 based on the report of the Local Fund Audit for the year 2001. Based on such sponsorship, he was interviewed and selected and an appointment order dated 12.07.2001 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent. 5. While so, the petitioner was issued the impugned order dated 26.12.2001 terminating his service with effect from 26.12.2001 based on the report of the Local Fund Audit for the year 2001. The petitioner enclosed an envelope in the typed set to show that the said impugned order was passed only on 18.01.2002 and the petitioner received the same on 19.01.2002. Immediately, the petitioner filed an original application in O.A.No.430 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the impugned order of the respondent terminating his service. While admitting O.A.No.430 of 2002, the Tribunal granted an order of interim stay. The respondent filed an application to vacate the interim stay. However, the vacate stay petition was dismissed by this Court and the stay was made absolute on 25.04.2002. 6. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and the same was taken on file in W.P.No.8576 of 2007. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the earlier round of litigation, the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.12.2001 has been set aside vide W.P.No.8576 of 2007 (O.A.No.430/2002) dated 11.08.2009 and it has been remanded for fresh consideration and thereafter, while considering the issue afresh, the respondent, with the predetermination of sending the petitioner out of service, issued the present show cause notice dated 31.05.2010, which has been challenged in the present writ petition and therefore, he prayed for quashing the impugned notice and in support of his contention, he relied upon the following two Judgments:- (i) In SIEMENS LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2007 (1) CTC 844, wherein it has been held as follows:- “9.Insofar as the charge memos are concerned, though they have been issued as charge memos, a perusal of the same would show the proposed punishment of dismissal to be imposed on each of the appellants has been indicated therein. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2007 (1) CTC 844, wherein it has been held as follows:- “9.Insofar as the charge memos are concerned, though they have been issued as charge memos, a perusal of the same would show the proposed punishment of dismissal to be imposed on each of the appellants has been indicated therein. In fact, the proceedings of the Block Development Office, dated 07.02.2005, also shows that it is more like a show cause notice for imposing the penalty of dismissal service, giving no room for the appellants to make their explanation.” (ii) In G.MARAGATHA MEENAKSHI v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR reported in 2010 (2) CWC 154 , wherein it has been observed as follows:- “13. A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable.” 8. Notice of motion was ordered on 09.06.2010 and this Court granted an order of interim stay on the said date. The matter has been pending since 2010 onwards and no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent also and therefore, this Court proceeded with the matter with the available materials. 9. From the perusal of the Judgments referred to above, it is seen that the case on hand is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned in this writ petition is bad in law, as it is putting a cart before the horse and therefore, the order impugned in W.P.(MD).No.7323 of 2010 is liable to be set aside. Further, in my considered view that the petitioner immediately after passing the impugned order against him, he moved this Court and obtained an order of interim stay on 09.06.2010. Further, in my considered view that the petitioner immediately after passing the impugned order against him, he moved this Court and obtained an order of interim stay on 09.06.2010. Now, much water has flown in this case for the simple reason that the petitioner with the stay granted by this Court, has put in considerable service with the respondent. It may not be appropriate for this Court to leave him into lurch at this stage and therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the respondent is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondent to follow the procedure as directed by this Court in the order in W.P.No.8576 of 2007 (O.A.No.430/2002) dated 11.8.2009 and to reconsider the three appointments made by the respondent after 06.05.2000 to accommodate the petitioner in the appropriate rotation. 10. In the light of the factual aspect of the matter, W.P.(MD).No.7323 of 2010 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, this case shall not be taken as a precedent in future. Further, in view of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.7323 of 2010, dated 03.07.2017, setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 31.05.2010, needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for the fixation of pay on par with others, as per G.O.Ms.No.16, Rural Development (PA.A.5), dated 29.1.1998 and also the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8576 of 2017, dated 11.08.2009. Consequential benefits shall be given to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.