ORDER : The petitioner herein is impugning the Order dated 1.4.2015 passed in O.A. No.1397/2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘Tribunal’, for short] in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein. 2. Admittedly, the said application was filed seeking quashing of Order dated 20.11.2013 vide Annexure A5 to the said application, which is in terminating the services of the petitioner for not having complied the requirement in the letter dated 22.10.2013 which was sent to the petitioner by the respondent-Postal Department vide Annexure A4. 3. The material on record would indicate that the petitioner who is claiming herself to be a person belonging to ‘OBC’ had applied for the post of ‘Gramin Dak Sevak - Branch Post Master [GDS-BPM]. Her application for the said post was considered and she was selected by Order dated 14.02.2011 bearing No.B2/BPM/102-13 issued by Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kolar Division, Kolar. The said order of appointment would state that it is purely on temporary basis and is liable to be terminated by the Appointing Authority. Thereafter, a communication is sent by the contesting respondent on 22.11.2013 vide communication No.B2/BPM/102-13, calling upon her to submit ‘OBC’ certificate as prescribed. The prescribed format was also appended to the said letter vide Annexure-A and the same is seen in this proceeding s as appended to the application before the Tribunal as Annexure A2. In the communication dated 22.10.2013, it was observed as under: “If you fail to comply to submit the OBC certificate in the prescribed format [Annexure A] to this office within the time stipulated, your provisional engagement will be terminated.” Though this letter is duly served on the petitioner, she has not furnished OBC certificate in the prescribed form within the time stipulated in the letter dated 22.10.2013. It is in this background, her services are terminated by Order dated 20.11.2013 vide No.B2/BPL/102-13 where relevant portion would read as under: “Smt. M. Anitha was given notice vide this office letter of even no. dated 22.10.2013 to submit the OBC Certificate in the prescribed form within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which the provisional engagement would be terminated. She did not submit the certificate so far. In view of the above, the provisional engagement as GDS-BPM, Balthamari B.O. a/w. Rayalpadu S.O. held by M. Anitha is hereby terminated with immediate effect.” 4. She did not submit the certificate so far. In view of the above, the provisional engagement as GDS-BPM, Balthamari B.O. a/w. Rayalpadu S.O. held by M. Anitha is hereby terminated with immediate effect.” 4. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No.1397/2013 where an attempt was made by the petitioner herein to substantiate that she belongs to ‘Lingayat’ community which comes under OBC both in the State of Karnataka as well as in the list prepared by the Central Government vide resolution of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 6.9.2001 where at Sl.No.146, the community of the petitioner ‘Lingayat’ is seen even in the old entry as well as new entry. Therefore, the question of her caste being Lingayat is not at all in dispute and would also try to substantiate that the word ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ which is used in Form No.F as referred to in the application which was filed, refers to the same community ‘Lingayat’. Therefore, the question of non furnishing of the certificate in the prescribed format at Annexure A vide letter dated 22.10.2013 would not take away her right to continue in the said post and as such, she should be allowed to continue in the said post. 5. The said contention is not accepted by the Tribunal which has gone on a tangent that community referred to in the certificate which was produced by the petitioner in Form No.F would refer to ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ which is not seen in the list which is prepared by the Central Government and as such, there is difference between the certificate which is furnished by her and name of the caste as seen in the list published by the Central Government. Therefore, termination of the applicant cannot be interfered and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application by order dated 01.04.2015. 6. The said Order is under challenge in this writ petition, where the line of argument is the same as that was before the Tribunal. Therefore, termination of the applicant cannot be interfered and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application by order dated 01.04.2015. 6. The said Order is under challenge in this writ petition, where the line of argument is the same as that was before the Tribunal. In any event, we are of the opinion that appreciation of the facts by the Tribunal may be different, but what is required to be seen here is certain procedure was prescribed by the respondent in putting in place the process of selection of the candidates for the post of GDS-BPM where it was clearly stated in the application that at the time of filing the application for appointment, certificate of caste as issued in Form No.F could be filed by the candidates to indicate that they belong to ‘OBC’ community and as and when they are selected, they were required to furnish certificate in the prescribed format as stated by the Department. 7. In the instant case also, what is done is that the petitioner herein is provisionally selected for the said post and the selection is communicated to her vide letter dated 14.02.2011 wherein, as stated supra, appointment is referred to as purely on ‘temporary basis’ with clarification that she is liable to be terminated by the Appointing Authority subject to the condition that if there is any variation in the procedure, it is presumed being not followed. In the instant case, it is also seen that there was an attempt on the part of the Postal Department in addressing a letter to the petitioner on 22.10.2013 calling upon her to submit ‘OBC’ certificate in the prescribed format as prescribed by the Postal Department which was appended as Annexure A to the said communication, produced as Annexure A4 before the Tribunal. It is seen that the petitioner has not responded to the said letter within fifteen days and did not produce the certificate as prescribed in Annexure A to the communication. 8. It is in this background, appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis is terminated by the respondent vide Annexure A5 dated 20.11.2013. When the entire material available on record is looked into, we are of the opinion that whether the petitioner belongs to ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ or ‘Lingayat’ community is not a matter for consideration. 8. It is in this background, appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis is terminated by the respondent vide Annexure A5 dated 20.11.2013. When the entire material available on record is looked into, we are of the opinion that whether the petitioner belongs to ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ or ‘Lingayat’ community is not a matter for consideration. The matter for consideration is whether she has violated the procedure prescribed for appointment in furnishing all the documents within the timeframe referred to in the communication sent to the petitioner. It is clear that she has not adhered to the same. In that view of the matter, the order of termination appears to be correct. Therefore, said action cannot be found fault with. 9. Though at this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to submit that it is only procedural irregularity which can be set right by permitting her to file required certificate in the prescribed format vide Annexure A2 to the communication dated 22.10.2013 and the appointment of the petitioner could be saved, in the fact situation. Though she has been working in the Postal department since the year 2011, this Court is of the opinion that when prescribed format is provided which is mandatory requirements to be followed, failure on the part of the petitioner cannot be ignored, taking a lenient view in this matter would be in setting a precedent for others to follow the same, which would be against the interest of the Institution. Though we feel sorry for the petitioner in not complying with the procedure, she has to face the consequences which cannot be avoided. With such observation, this writ petition is dismissed.