Judgment :- Sathiadev, J.: The petitioner in these petitions claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe-Konda Reddy and that she had obtained a caste certificate to that effect from the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Sankari on 5.6.1976. She was appointed as an Air Hostess in Indian Airlines under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. At that time, she secured a certificate from the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in the form prescribed under circular issued by the Central Government relating to posts/services in the Central Government and in Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory and Semi-Government Bodies, and voluntary agencies receiving grants in aid from the Central Government. She came to know that the fourth respondent-Indian Airlines had sought for verification regarding the genuineness of the caste certificate. The first respondent-Collector of Salem had initiated enquiry proceedings through his subordinate officers. On 19.11.1981, the Revenue Inspector came to the village and conducted an enquiry in which statements were obtained from the petitioner’s father and ten other persons. All of them gave statements in support of her claim. Again in December, 1981, the third respondent-Tahsildhar, Sankari conducted an oral enquiry in the presence of the Revenue Inspector, and here again, the persons who have appeared before him have deposed in her favour. Again in January, 1982, when the second respondent-Sub-Collector, Sankari came for holding an enquiry, nearly ten persons were examined, and they also supported the petitioner’s claim. On her behalf, nine documents were produced. She was made to understand that respondents 2 and 3 have sent reports to the first respondent stating that she is a Konda Reddy. On coming to know that her paternal uncle Mr.K.M.Raju, out of jealousy and family feud, had submitted a petition to the first respondent stating that she does not belong to Konda Reddy, her father sent a petition to the first respondent to the effect that if his inimical brother is examined, the petitioner should also be permitted to participate in the enquiry. In spite of being made aware of these factors, the first respondent had written on 1.12.82 to the fourth respondent, stating that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community, which had resulted in the fourth respondent issuing a show cause notice on 4.2.1982 calling upon her to submit her representations against the proposal to take disciplinary action against her. Challenging this proceedings, W.P.No.1236 of 1983 is filed. Challenging this proceedings, W.P.No.1236 of 1983 is filed. W.P.No. 1235 of 1983 is filed to quash the report of the first respondent dated 1.12.1982. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that when a valid certificate had been secured from the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, who is one of the prescribed authorities authorised to issue a caste certificate as per the letter of the Central Government dated 5.8.1975, the fourth respondent being an instrumentality or agency of the Central Government and wholly owned by it, is bound to act upon such a certificate, unless and until the said certificate is cancelled. On the approach made by the first respondent, it is stated that in spite of himself being put on prior notice that the petitioners paternal-uncle out of family fued had come forward with a false complaint, his statement had been relied upon for the impugned • report, and that she was not afforded a fair opportunity of rebutting this claim. She states that in spite of all the efforts taken to produce several materials before respondents 2 and 3, who in their turn had, forwarded their reports in her favour, the first respondent had deliberately avoided referring to those materials, but forwarded a cryptic report to the fourth respondent relying upon the statements given by her sworn enemies. 3. On behalf of the fourth respondent, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel, strenuously pleads that the fourth respondent has the necessary disciplinary jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and decide whether the caste certificate relied upon by the petitioner is genuine or not. He submits that no valid cause has been made out to stall the fourth respondent from conducting an enquiry irrespective of whatever be the reports that may be submitted by the Collector or other Revenue Authorities. Having come across certain materials, it cannot be prevented from taking a decision about the correctness of the certificate, irrespective of the fact whether the certificate already issued by the competent authority is cancelled or not. 4. In W.A.No.783 of 1982, this Court held that G.O.Ms.No.1139, Social Welfare, dated 23.3.1982 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu would be applicable only in respect of caste certificates required for its purposes and not in respect of caste certificates required to be produced for posts in the Central Government. 4. In W.A.No.783 of 1982, this Court held that G.O.Ms.No.1139, Social Welfare, dated 23.3.1982 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu would be applicable only in respect of caste certificates required for its purposes and not in respect of caste certificates required to be produced for posts in the Central Government. A contention is raised to the effect that the fourth respondent and similarly placed Public Sector Undertakings, Nationalised banks and other instrumentalities or agencies of the Central Government have the right to decide, whether the caste certificates issued by the authorities alone could be acted upon, irrespective of whatever be the directives of the Central Government as found in its letter dated 5.8.1975, read with earlier instructions. In Chapter XIX of the Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services, 6th Edition (1982) at Page 286 (hereinafter referred as the Brochure) it is stated thus: 19.1 The various instructions given in this Brochure relate to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in posts/services under the Government. The Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory and Semi-Government Bodies etc, under the control of the Government, have also been asked to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in their services on the lines of the reservations in services under Government by separate instructions as mentioned in the following paragraphs. Paragraph 19.2 deals with the directives forwarded by the Bureau of Public Enterprises to the administrative Ministries for issue to the Public Undertakings. One of the innumerable instructions given in the Brochure relates to how and in what manner caste certificates are to be obtained, and as to which of the authorities are authorised to issue them. A Presidency Magistrate is one such authority. When instructions issued by the Central Government relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are binding on its Public Sector Undertakings and even voluntary agencies receiving grants-in-aid from the Central Government, the plea raised by more than one Counsel appearing on behalf of Nationalised Banks and their Recruitment Board, Indian Airlines and like institutions that they are not bound by the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard, has to be necessarily rejected. They have no right to make a choice and claim that they would accept the certificate issued only by one of the prescribed authorities or any authority other than what have been prescribed by the Central Government. 5. They have no right to make a choice and claim that they would accept the certificate issued only by one of the prescribed authorities or any authority other than what have been prescribed by the Central Government. 5. The next contention is that, a caste certificate is not a public document and it is only a communication reflecting the statement of facts and hence, irrespective of whether the issuing authority or the Collector/District Magistrate in the District had cancelled it or not, it is open to the employer to hold an enquiry and decide about the correctness of the certificate, and further pursue with the disciplinary proceedings against the concerned personnel. The caste certificate is issued by a public authority authorised to issue it, after holding an enquiry, as circumstances may warrant. It is a public duty to be discharged by a public servant, or authority conferred upon him to issue such a certificate. The contention on behalf of the fourth respondent and by the Central Government Standing Counsel is that, a caste certificate is not conclusive of what is contained therein, and the employer has the jurisdiction to decide upon the correctness of the claim made therein, by calling upon the certificate-holder to adduce evidence in support of the contents of the certificate, and failing which, suitable action could be taken against the certificate-holder. In support of the claim that it is not a public document, it is stated that when a certified copy could not be secured of the records relating to issue of caste certificate, it would not come within the definition of “public document†under section 74 of the Evidence Act. This contention lacks strength because section 76 of the Evidence Act takes care of the nature of documents in respect of which alone certified copies could be obtained. Hence, this aspect cannot be a determinative factor to hold as to whether a caste certificate is a public document or not. What is paramount is to find out whether in the course of discharge of public duties, the concerned public authority is enjoined to discharge the public duty, and if so, then the document which comes into existence consequent to such public duties, issued with seal and authority of his Office would be a public document. What is paramount is to find out whether in the course of discharge of public duties, the concerned public authority is enjoined to discharge the public duty, and if so, then the document which comes into existence consequent to such public duties, issued with seal and authority of his Office would be a public document. Once a caste certificate comes into existence in this form any other public functionary is duty bound to act upon the same. On being issued, it is a lawful and valid document. So long as, it is not cancelled in the eye of law, it being a valid document, the holder of it, could rely upon it to establish his caste. Except the prescribed authority, no other authority or public bodies or undertakings etc. having been conferred with powers to issue caste certificates, he cannot choose to declare in any proceeding, that the valid caste certificate contains false particulars. Further, in G.O.Ms.No.9, Social Welfare dated 3.1.1983, instruction were given that records of local enquiry must be maintained as a permanent record for verification in future, which is also indicative of the fact that caste certificate is a public document. Hence, it is held that a caste certificate is a public document. 6. The next point taken is, when the power to cancel a caste certificate has not . been conferred on empowered authorities, there is no need for the concerned employer to await till the concerned authority cancels the certfi-cate, and only thereafter take a decision about the correct caste of the candidate or employee or servant. Under section 21 or the General Clauses Act, a power to make an order includes the power to rescind it. Hence, the empowered authorities who had brought into existence the lawful and valid caste certificate or his higher authority alone could cancel a caste certificate Unless and until it is done, all public authorities in Central Government and Public Sector Undertakings and bodies etc. which are under its control are bound to treat the contents of such certificate as correct. 7. Yet another contention taken is, in spite of becoming aware of the falsity of such certificate, they would be compelled to keep those certificate-holders in service employment in spite of powers vested in them to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that such a situation should not be allowed to exist. 7. Yet another contention taken is, in spite of becoming aware of the falsity of such certificate, they would be compelled to keep those certificate-holders in service employment in spite of powers vested in them to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that such a situation should not be allowed to exist. Here again, this argument overlooks the enablement provided in Chapter XIV to verify the correctness of caste certificate if deemed necessary. Paragraph 14.3 in Chapter XIV enables an appointing authority if it considers necessary for any reason to verify the claim of a candidate through the District Magistrate of the place where himself or his family ordinarily resides. Hence, at the time of remand itself in such of those cases wherein any doubt is entertained, an opportunity is to be given to vouchsafe the correctness or genuineness of the certificate. Irrespective of the several categories of empowered authorities, if the question of verification arises, a highly responsible authority being the District Magistrate-Collector, is authorised to verify the correctness of the certi-cate. This court considers that the Central Government after considerable care had chosen only responsible authorities, oh whom the concerned Governments have disciplinary control, to issue such of those cases where a verification is necessary, to ascertain the correctness of the certificate, no prejudice is caused to recruiting bodies in acting upon such authorised caste certificates. Furthermore, if after remand had been made, circumstances warrant a verification to be made and if it is proved that the candidates claim is false, then his services may be terminated in accordance with the relevant rules/ orders. This being sufficient safeguard provided to act upon caste certificates, the concerned employer cannot insist upon taking a decision regarding the correctness of the caste certificates in disiciplinary proceedings. 8. This being sufficient safeguard provided to act upon caste certificates, the concerned employer cannot insist upon taking a decision regarding the correctness of the caste certificates in disiciplinary proceedings. 8. On the contention that for a false representation made or for filing a not genuine document in support of employment, the power vests in the appointing authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and therefore, in the said proceedings, the disciplinary authority has the right to decide whether a caste certificate is genuine or not, it has to be held that that, it being a public document authorised to be issued with seal, and the empowered authority, having the jurisdiction to rescind it if it is found to be incorrect, and added to all these, in deserving cases, when the Collector could be called upon to verify about their genuineness, and in such an enquiry, the concerned authority could place whatever materials it had come across and once it is determined, by the Collector that the contents of the certificate are true and correct, thereafter the same could not be subjected to any further enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding. If the Collector cancels the certificate, undoubtedly, on the basis of such a report, disciplinary action could be takento terminate the services of. the certificate-holder. This is precisely stated in paragraph 14.3 in Chapter XIV. 9. When verifications are called for, as to what procedure is to be followed the Government of Tamil Nadu in letter dated 7.7.1983 had stated that a Collector can cancel a community certificate issued by a subordinate officer when it is found to be false. As to what he had to do under such circumstances, clear-cut directives having been issued, the recruiting agency or bodies/institutions etc. will have to look to the Collector regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the certificate. The procedure followed by him having been specifically stated and the consequences which would fall not only on the candidate but also on the issuing authority, if the caste certificate is proved to be false, there is absolutely no scope to accept the contention of some of the counsel appearing for these bodies that the empowered authorities would act in an irresponsible manner. When the Central Government had issued directives as to how these caste certificates are to be issued and acted upon, and particularly relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the policy of the Government is not to cause undue hardship to them. In proving their caste, it is just and proper to hold that, unless and until a caste certificate is cancelled, it is binding on all concerned authorities/institutions/bodies/undertakings etc. 10. As for the petitioner, she filed not only a certificte issued by a Deputy Tahsildar but also by the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. Her S.S.L.C. Certificate states that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The Headmaster of Government High School, Sinnappampatti has certified that she belongs to Indian-Hindu-Konda Reddy. The sale deed dated 30.12.1926 in favour of her grand-father mentioning therein the words “Konda Reddy†was produced. This was executed on a stamp of that year. It was no registered. Several persons examined by respondents 2 and 3 have stated that her father is a Konda Reddy. The Collector of Ramnad in his circular, taking note of the attitude of the subordinate officers being reluctant to issue community certificates in respect of Konda Reddy Community, had stated that even if no documentary evidence is available, sworn-affidavit by the person/parent/guardian in stamp paper with two respectable persons stating about community may be obtained. Certifying authority can make enquiry and verify with villagers concerned and the community people before issuing the certificate. Now in this case, several persons have supported the claim of the petitioner. In spite of such materials existing, the first respondent had relied upon the allegation made in the petition filed by K.M.Raju, the paternal-uncle of the petitioner, who had himself stated that between himself and the father of the petitioner, due to partition dispute, they are not on talking terms. The other complainant is P.Radhakrishnan, who is the son of the petitioner’s aunt. Except the oral claims made by them, they had not produced any contra documentary evidence to dislodge the reliance placed by the petitioner on the basis of ancient documents etc. The Tahsildar, Sankari- the third respondent in his report dated 10.12.1981 had stated that the villagers have given sworn statements and since the sale deed of 1926 specifically refers to Konda Reddy, the petitioner belongs to the said caste. The Tahsildar, Sankari- the third respondent in his report dated 10.12.1981 had stated that the villagers have given sworn statements and since the sale deed of 1926 specifically refers to Konda Reddy, the petitioner belongs to the said caste. The second respondent-Sub-Collector, who is an I.A.S.Officer, after considering all details not only of the contents of documents, but also the claims made by all deponents had come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner. In spite such materials and reports existing, the first respondent who had already issued a circular that Konda Reddy Community is non-existent in Salem District, had chosen to rely on oral claims made by two complainants, who are close relations of the petitioner and who are admittedly inimical towards her and there being total absence of consideration of the contents of the reports submitted by respondents 2 and 3 and the materials produced by the petitioner, the impugned communication of the first respondent dt. 1.12.1984 is illegal, as the conclusion arrived at therein is obviously perverse. As pointed out by the Sub-Collector, when overwhelming evidence exists in support of the claim of the petitioner, it is fruitless to remit the matter for passing fresh orders as claimed by the counsel for the first respondent. The certificate issued by the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras being a competent authority to issue such a certificate, and having not yet been cancelled, and the petitioner having satisfactoril, established that she belongs to Konda Reddy Community, there is no warrant for any further enquiry to be held. But for the illegal and invalid communication of the first respondent, the fourth respondent would not have issued the impugned show-cause notice. Now that it is held that the petitioner is a Konda Reddy and the certificte of 18th Metropolitan Magistrate being a valid certificate, the fourth respondent cannot further proceed against the petitioner as if she had produced a false certificate. Hence, it is held that: 1. A Caste/Community Certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document till it is cancelled by the said authority or by his superior authority. 2. Their contents are to be treated as correct and every public authority, undertakings, bodies, institutions, etc. Hence, it is held that: 1. A Caste/Community Certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document till it is cancelled by the said authority or by his superior authority. 2. Their contents are to be treated as correct and every public authority, undertakings, bodies, institutions, etc. which are bound by instructions relating to such certificates, are bound to act upon them, so long as they are not cancelled. 3. In no disciplinary proceeding, their genuineness or correctness of their contents can be gone into. It is open to the department or employer or organisation, to ask the issuing authority or District Collector, as the case may be, to verify whether the certificate as issued could be still valid, on materials which have since come to their knowledge. They can appear in the verification enquiry and place the materials. 4. If the certificate is cancelled, then disciplinary proceedings can be initiated for having furnished false information. 5. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate-Collector of the District or such other constituted authority, and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate-holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner. 6. In causing verification, the Collector is bound to follow the procedure laid down in letter dated 7.7.1983 of Government of Tamil Nadu. 7. In view of what is stated in Chapter XIX of Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Service, 6th Edition (1982), the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, pertaining to issue of caste certificates are binding upon public and voluntary agencies receiving grands-in-aid from the Central Government, as provided therein. 11. For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are allowed with costs payable by the first respondent. Advocates fee Rs.250/- one set. Petition allowed.