ORDER : The petitioners filed the present writ petitions for writ of certiorari or any writ order or direction and to quash the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the arrears of salary of the petitioners from which it was stopped with interest till the actual payment at 12% per annum and since the petitioner No.2 has retired from service to pay the arrears of salary from when it was stopped and to fix and pay the pension from the date of retirement 30.10.2017 and also to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to release the salary of petitioner No.1. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belonged to Beda Jangama Caste and obtained caste certificates from the jurisdictional officer in the year 1987 and they have applied for the post of Lecturer and Librarian in pursuance of the notification issued by the fourth respondent. On 22.07.1988 petitioner No.1 Sri Shivaraj was appointed as a Lecturer and on 03.10.1989 petitioner No.2 Smt.Shashikala was appointed as Librarian and joined their duties under fourth respondent’s college. The things stood thus, a complaint made by third party i.e., one Mr.Baburao P.Badiger, District Secretary SCST Cell KPC, Gulbarga which was forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police, CRE Cell, Bengaluru. Based on the said complaint the matter was enquired by the said CRE Cell and submitted a report to the District Caste Verification Committee, Kalaburagi (for short the ‘Committee’) in the year 2005. The said Committee by order dated 01.10.2005 and 02.03.2017 without issuing notice and hearing to the petitioners cancelled the caste certificates of both the petitioners as per Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’. On the basis of the said orders passed by the said Committee, the State Principal Secretary, SCST Cell KPC, Kalaburagi lodged a complaint on 05.07.2017 to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Department. In response to the same, the Commissioner by a letter dated 25.07.2017 as per AnnexureC directed the respondent No.3 – Joint Director to inspect and enquire into the fourth respondent institution and submit a report. The Regional Joint Director, Kalaburagi by a letter dated 11.08.2017 after enquiry with the fourth respondent without noticing and hearing to the petitioners directed the fourth respondent institution to stop the salary vide Annexure-D. 3. The Regional Joint Director, Kalaburagi by a letter dated 11.08.2017 after enquiry with the fourth respondent without noticing and hearing to the petitioners directed the fourth respondent institution to stop the salary vide Annexure-D. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Committee, both the petitioners filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru in Appeal No.9/2017-18 and Appeal No.10/2017-18 under Section 4-D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990. The Appellate authority after considering the entire material on record by a separate orders dated 29.08.2017 and 05.09.2017 allowed both the appeals and the orders passed by the Committee, was setaside and the matter remanded back to the Committee to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity to both appellants/petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and also directed the parties to appear before respondent-Committee on 18.09.2017. Admittedly the said matter still pending for adjudication. The order passed by the Committee has reached finality. After the orders passed by the Appellate Authority both the petitioners made a representations to fourth respondent dated 06.10.2017 and 26.10.2017 brought into the notice and requested to release of their salary. Inspite of the same the respondents 1 and 3 neither considered the representations nor passed any orders. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri Praveen Raikote, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Joint Director – respondent No.3 Annexure-D to stop the salary of the petitioners is without notice and without holding any enquiry is not a proper perspective. Based on the direction issued by the first respondent - Commissioner to inspect the college and submit a report in spite of submitting a report, respondent No.3 straightway proceeded to issued direction as per Annexure-D dated 11.08.2017 to stop the salary of the present petitioners, is totally without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 6. He would further contend that on the basis of the complaint made by the Secretary of SCST Cell KPC, Kalaburagi, the Commissioner first respondent only directed the Joint Director – third respondent to inspect the college and submit a report. 6. He would further contend that on the basis of the complaint made by the Secretary of SCST Cell KPC, Kalaburagi, the Commissioner first respondent only directed the Joint Director – third respondent to inspect the college and submit a report. The commissioner has not directed the Joint Director to stop the salary of the petitioners who is the approving authority. He would further contend that admittedly the order passed by the Committee dated 01.10.2015 and 02.03.2017 which was seta-side by the Appellate Authority as per Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 05.09.2017 and 29.08.2017. Inspite of that, the said fact was brought into the notice to the Joint Director third respondent by way of representations Annexures ‘G’ and ‘H’ but has not released the salary. Therefore, he submits that the main inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 3 is in utter violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions. 7. Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent – Joint Director Annexure-D. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed fact that both the petitioners were appointed as Lecturer and Librarian in the year 198889. On the basis of the complaint made by one Mr.Baburao P.Badiger, District Secretary SCST Cell KPC, Kalaburagi has cancelled the caste certificates of petitioners. That was the subject mater of the appeal before the Appellate Authority in Appeal Nos.9 and 10 of 2017-18 as per Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’. The Appellate Authority after holding detailed enquiry allowed both the appeals and the said order has reached its finality. 9. The material on record clearly depicts that on the basis of the complaint made by third party the third respondent - Commissioner only directed the third respondent - Joint Director to visit and inspect the fourth respondent institution and submit a report. It is not the case of fourth respondent institution or the respondents 1 and 3 that the petitioners who obtained caste certificates by suppressing their castes and absolutely there is no enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 or fourth respondent before taking the action as per Annexure-D by the third respondent. It is not the case of fourth respondent institution or the respondents 1 and 3 that the petitioners who obtained caste certificates by suppressing their castes and absolutely there is no enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 or fourth respondent before taking the action as per Annexure-D by the third respondent. It is the duty of the authority before initiate any further proceedings ought to have issued notice and opportunity being heard and the same has not been done in the present case. Even otherwise after the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as per Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 05.09.2017 and 29.08.2017. Though it was brought to the notice to the respondents 1 and 3 on 06.10.2017 on 26.10.2017 about the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, third respondent in all fairness, ought to have released the salary till further orders by the District Caste Verification Committee. In view of the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority, the same has not been done in the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ issued by respondents 1 and 3 is without issuing any notice or hearing cannot be sustained. Even though, the fourth respondent served unrepresented and it is not the case of the fourth respondent that petitioners never worked under fourth respondent institution. If the petitioners have worked under the fourth respondent institution they are entitled the salary for the period they worked. 11. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ issued by respondents 1 and 3 are hereby quashed. Writ of mandamus is issued to respondents 1 and 3 to take necessary steps and ensure to release the salary of the petitioners from the date of the orders passed by third respondent i.e., 11.08.2017 and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.