1. The petitioner has challenged the order of Respondent No. 1, dated 6.8.1989, in Na. Ka. M.2.122595 of 1985, cancelling the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner joined the Madras Customs House, as a Lower Division Clerk, on 13.9.1982. He produced a community certificate, which certified that he belonged to ST community, called Kattunaikan. On 20.5.1985, Respondent No. 4 sent a list of SC/ST quota appointees to the SC/ST Commissioner on their request. The District Collector, by his letter, dated 25.12.1985 called for the original community certificate of the petitioner for verification, which was sent on 23.3.1988 from the Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare Department, stating that the petitioner did not belong to the ST community. Respondent No. 4 was informed that action was to be initiated against the petitioner by the Collector of Trichy. The Collector, Trichy, vide his letter dated 19.5.1989, addressed to Respondent No. 4, sent notice to the petitioner, summoning him to appear before him on 30.5.1989, at 4.00 p.m. Based on the enquiry, the Collector of Trichy cancelled the Community Certificate (ST Certificate) of the petitioner and held that the petitioner belonged to a backward community (Gavara) and not to the ST community. Subsequently, the Additional Collector of Customs vide his letter dated 5.10.1989 to the Collector of Trichy sought clarification on certain points. The clarification was not given by the Collector of Trichy. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached this Court, through this writ petition and has obtained stay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear for the personal enquiry, inspite of specific request. He also contended that the impugned order is violative of the principles laid down by this Court in W.P. Nos.1235 and 1236 of 1983 and in W.P. 3924 of 1989, reported in S. Chandrakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 (2) M.L.J. 429, wherein this Court has taken the view and held that opportunity of being heard should be given and so also a copy of the representation shall be supplied to the person concerned.

4. Respondent No. 4 has filed his counter inter alia contending that basically the grievance of the petitioner is touching a service matter and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the petitioner has to seek remedy before the Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and all service matters under Section 28 (3) of the the Administrative Tribunals Act will vest in the jurisdiction of the CAT. This contention has no basis and is unsustainable because Section 3 (q) defines service matter as follows:-

" Service matter in relation to a person means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or as the case may be, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government as respects:-

(i) Remuneration (including allowances), pension or other retirement benefits; (ii) Tenure including confirmation, seniority, pro-motion, pension, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever."

The instant case is not the one pertaining to the conditions of service in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State touching remuneration, tenure, including confirmation, seniority, promotion, leave of any kind, disciplinary matters etc. The present case is concerned only with the caste or the status in the sense, to which community the petitioner belongs On this reasoning, the contention is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is unable to place any material to show that the petitioner was supplied with the copy of the report as held by this court in S. Chandrakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 (2) M.L.J. 429. It is incumbent upon the authority to serve the copy of the report. Respondent No. 2 is directed to serve the copy of the report and thereafter the petitioner to be given an opportunity of being heard and then to decide to which community he belongs, in accordance with law. The impugned order is set aside on this ground. Since the petitioner is in service any unreasonable delay is not an appreciable matter.

6. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent/Collector, Trichy, with a direction to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.