ORDER
S.B. Sinha, CJ.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24-11-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.10326 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed holding:
“Apart from the merits of the case, the first respondent took a stand that the entire cause of action, if any, for the petitioner arose in the State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent of whom the petitioner is an employee, passed the order of termination dated 8-6-2000 at Chennai within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu High Court, all the proceedings which form the basis of the termination order took place in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore no part of the cause of action arose in the territory over this Court for exercising its jurisdiction though the termination order effects within the territory over this Court for
exercising its jurisdiction. Subsequently the cause of action arose in the territory of Tamil Nadu.
Apart from the objections raised by the respondents, in my view, the writ petition must be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as he suppressed all the relevant material with regard to the enquiry conducted against the petitioner in connection with the Community Certificate. The petitioner on one hand admits that he received the notice of the enquiry by the Collector, Chennai but he simply chose to suppress all further information in that regard. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit it is clearly stated that pursuant to the notice issued by the Collector, Chennai, the petitioner gave his explanation and he was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 25-5-2000 wherein the petitioner appeared. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves no consideration by this Court and the same is therefore dismissed at this stage.”
2. This case appears to have a chequered career. The appellant claims himself to be belonging to ‘Arunthathiar’ community. He produced before his employer a status certificate to the said effect. The Collector, Chennai, conducted certain enquiries whereafter the said certificate had been cancelled. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri, , the services of the petitioner-appellant could be terminated and in fact had been terminated by the respondents by an order dated 8-6-2000. However, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner an interim order was passed in terms whereof he had been continued in service. As against the aforementioned
order of the Collector cancelling the said status certificate an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Central Government, which is still pending. As the said appeal was not being disposed of within a reasonable time, the appellant herein appears to have filed a writ petition before the Chennai High Court, which was numbered as WP No.10256 of 2000 and by an order dated 23-6-2000 it was directed that the order cancelling the appellant’s community certificate be questioned in an appeal within the time stipulated therein. An appeal (WA No.2285 of 2000) was preferred there against and a Division Bench (Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Sampath) of the Chennai High Court by an order dated 20-12-2000 inter alia directed:
“4. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the materials on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge, so as to call for any interference. Accordingly, we direct the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the appellant is not removed, he may not be removed till the appeal is decided, but it will be subject to the ultimate result of the appeal……”
3. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that as on 20-12-2000 he had not been removed from service pursuant to the interim order passed by the said Court.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank submits that his client was not a party in the aforementioned writ petition and the writ appeal.
5. Admittedly the order of termination of service has been received by the
appellant herein at Hyderabad and, thus, a part of the case of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. He was at the material time also admittedly serving the respondents-Bank at Hyderabad.
6. It may be, as has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that in terms of the order passed by the Chennai High Court, he had a cause of action to file the writ petition. But, evidently, the said order was not binding upon the respondents as they were not a party therein. The petitioner’s writ petition could not have been allowed, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Laveti Giri (supra). In that view of the matter, although we may not agree with the reasons given by the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which this appeal should have been entertained and particularly having regard to the fact that in the event the appellant succeeds in the appeal filed by him against the order of the Collector, Chennai, cancelling the community certificate, he would automatically be reinstated into service. Moreover the appellant was continuing in service pursuant to an interim order, and such an interim order could be re-called despite the order passed by the Chennai High Court. It is also likely that the attention of the learned Judges of the Chennai High Court had not been drawn to the fact that the appellant had been continuing in service only pursuant to an interim order and not independent on the order of cancelling of the community certificate. The appellant, however, may avail any other remedy available to him in law.
7. This appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions. No order as to costs.