Judgment : Writ Petition No.597 of 1992 is filed by the petitioner against the order of the respondent therein to issue a community certificate to the petitioner’s daughter to the effect that she belongs to Konda Reddy community. 2. Writ Petition No.598 of 1992 is an off-shot of the earlier order passed in the earlier writ petition (W.P.No.597 of 1992) by which Director of Technical Education has passed an order in the month of December, 1991 directing the Principal of the second respondent college to remove the name of the petitioner’s daughter from the rolls of the college. 3. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing, by consent of of both parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for final hearing, though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4. The short facts are: The petitionef ‘s daughter N.P.Sayee Sankari was selected under the category of Scheduled Tribe Category for B.E. (Civil) Engineering course for the academic year 1989-90 and was allotted to S.R.M. Engineering College, Kattankolathur, who is the second respondent in W.P.No.598 of 1992. The petitioner’s daughter was admitted to the second respondent college provisionally accepting the community certificate issued by the Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Pallipet, who issued the certificate in the year 1982 to the effect that the petitioner’s daughter belongs to ‘Konda Reddy Community’. Further, the petitioner’s daughter seems to have applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the grant of community certificate and in turn the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar, Pallipet, to conduct an enquiry and send his report. In turn, the Tahsildar directed the Revenue Inspector to conduct an enquiry and send his report. On 38. 1989, the Tahsildar, Pallipet conducted the enquiry and the petitioner was informed that the report would be sent to Revenue Divisional Officer. The case of the petitioner is that till December, 1989 the Revenue Divisional Officer did not pass any order. On 212. 1989, it seems the petitioner met the Principal of the second respondent and submitted. that community certificate would be produced as and when the same was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. On 212. 1989, the Principal of the College sent communication to the petitioner informing that community certificate has to be produced on or before 1. 1990 failing which the name of the petitioner’s daughter would be removed from the college rolls. that community certificate would be produced as and when the same was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. On 212. 1989, the Principal of the College sent communication to the petitioner informing that community certificate has to be produced on or before 1. 1990 failing which the name of the petitioner’s daughter would be removed from the college rolls. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.151 of 1990 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur to dispose of the application for the grant of community certificate. It seems an order of injunction was also prayed as not to remove the name of the petitioner’s daughter from the rolls pending disposal of the writ petition. On 21. 1990, the Revenue Divisional Officer, passed orders holding that the petitioner’s daughter did not belong to Konda Reddy’s community and in view of the said orders, W.P.No.151 of 1990 was dismissed as it had become infructuous. However, the injunction granted earlier was extended upto 22. 1990 by Srinivasan, J. to facilitate the petitioner to challenge the order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 21. 1990, declining to issue a community certificate as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, it seems the petitioner filed W.P.22. 1990 before this Court and obtained an order of interim injunction from removing the name of the petitioner’s daughter from the rolls of the College. By the orders of this Court in W.M.P.No.5942 of 1990 on 4. 1990, permission was granted to the petitioner’s daughter to appear for 1 year B.E. examination and also direction was issued to give the hall tickets. By order dated 110. 1990, in W.M.P.No. 19297 of 1990 a direction to publish the results of first year examination was issued. Again by order dated 20.11.1990 in W.M.P.No.27932 of 1990 the petitioner’s daughter obtained permission to write III semester examinations and also a direction was issued for the issuance of hall ticket. Ultimately, W.P.No.2182 of 1992 was allowed on 22. 1991 by Ramalingam, J. directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the application in accordance with law. Again, Writ Petition No.4412 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner praying for the writ of mandamus not to remove the name of the petitioner’s daughter from the rolls and an order of injunction was obtained. By order dated 29. 1991 by Ramalingam, J. directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the application in accordance with law. Again, Writ Petition No.4412 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner praying for the writ of mandamus not to remove the name of the petitioner’s daughter from the rolls and an order of injunction was obtained. By order dated 29. 1991, Govindasamy, J., directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the application for grant of community certificate within four weeks from the said date. The Revenue Divisional Officer again passed orders on 110. 1991 holding that the petitioner’s daughter did not belong to Konda Reddi community. Consequently, W.P.No.5412 of 1991 was dismissed on 11. 1991. At this stage, the impugned order has been passed by the Director of Technical Education against which W.P.No.598 of 1992 has been filed. Against the order, dismissing the claim of the petitioner that his daughter belongs to ‘Konda Reddy’ community, W.P.No.597 of 1992 has been filed. 5. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the petitioner’s daughter seems to have finished B.E. (Civil) degree and the results have been withheld. 6. Mr.G.Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, rejecting the application of the petitioner thrice, as if the petitioner’s daughter did not belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ community is erroneous in law in view of the orders of the Division Bench followed by Venkataswami, J. in W.P.No.7242 of 1986 dated 9. 1986. Learned counsel further points out that in the impugned order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has referred to a document in which the term ‘Konthala’ appears and has stated that ‘Konthalakulam’ is different from ‘Konda Reddy’ community. Learned counsel argues that the statement made by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order dated 110. 1991 is not in accordance with law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in R.Valan v. The Collector of Chengalpattu, W.P.No.3363 of 1986 dated 37. 1986, consisting of Chandurkar, C.J. and Sathiadev, J. (as he then was) and followed by the Order of Venkataswami, J. in P.N.Gunasekar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvellore, W.P.No. 7242 of 1986 dated 9. 1986. 1986, consisting of Chandurkar, C.J. and Sathiadev, J. (as he then was) and followed by the Order of Venkataswami, J. in P.N.Gunasekar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvellore, W.P.No. 7242 of 1986 dated 9. 1986. That apart, it is contended, that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the materials including the reports of the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer and inasmuch as the Revenue Divisional Officer has failed to take the relevant materials into consideration, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inability of the petitioner to produce a witness cannot be taken advantage by the respondents to reject the request of the petitioner for the issuance of the community certificate. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though there are instructions of the Government to the effect that ‘Konthalakulam’ and ‘Konda Reddy’ communities are different law laid down by this Court has to weigh more than the instructions of the Government. 7. Learned Government Advocate has contended that the petitioner has not produced relevant materials or evidence so as to enable the Revenue Divisional Officer to arrive at a decision and that the impugned order is not bad in law. 8. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and of the learned Government Advocate and also on going through the materials placed before this Court, I am of the view that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 110. 1991 is liable to be set aside. As I have already stated above, on the basis of the community certificate issued by the Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Pallipat, the petitioner’s daughter wrote the examination for the academic year 1989-90 and joined the B.E. (Civil) degree course. When application was made by the petitioner to issue a community certificate to the effect that his daughter belongs to ‘Konda Reddy’ community, it was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 21. 1990. A writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in W.P.No.2182 of 1990 and by order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22. 1992, Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. Again by order dated 110. 1990. A writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in W.P.No.2182 of 1990 and by order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22. 1992, Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. Again by order dated 110. 1991, the-Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders holding that the petitioner’s daughter did not belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ community and it is impugned in this writ petition. In my view, the order impugned in W.P.No.597 of 1992 is liable to be set aside as the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind. I am of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the relevant records available to arrive at a correct decision. Reliance made upon the administrative direction of the Government to hold that ‘Kondalakulam’ is different from ‘Konda Reddy’ is different will not hold good since the law laid by this Court is different as stated above. In view of that, the impugned order in W.P.No.597 of 1992 has necessarily got to be set aside and accordingly the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 110. 1991 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer to take into consideration the entire materials available on record and also the judgment of Division Bench of this Court and also the order of a learned single Judge, cited supra with regard to this question and the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to pass a well considered order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner. Writ Petition No.597 of 1992 will stand allowed to that extent. No costs. 9. Coming to Writ Petition No.598 of 1992 it is a case where the petitioner’s daughter has finished her B.E (Civil) degree course during the pendency of the writ petition. It is not disputed and it cannot be disputed that the petitioner’s daughter has written the entrance examination on the basis of the certificate issued by the Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Pallipet. Coming to Writ Petition No.598 of 1992 it is a case where the petitioner’s daughter has finished her B.E (Civil) degree course during the pendency of the writ petition. It is not disputed and it cannot be disputed that the petitioner’s daughter has written the entrance examination on the basis of the certificate issued by the Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Pallipet. Only after her joining in the course, when a dispute arose with regard the community of the petitioner’s daughter, a series of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court and interim orders have been obtained by the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner’s daughter to complete the B.E. (Civil) course, in which she had joined in the academic year 1989-90. This Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in A.Chithra v. The Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai, 1993 W.L.R. 485, where the petitioner had finished the M.B.B.S. course and that on the fact that the community certificate has not been issued, the course completion certificate was not given to the petitioner in that case, it has been held that the pendency of the enquiry cannot stand in the way of petitioner getting the completion certificate. In that case, this Court has held as follows: (at P.485) “The pendency of the enquiry cannot stand in the way of petitioner getting the completion certificate. What will be the result of the enquiry is entirely a different matter. It may be open to the respondents to pass any order in the said enquiry and it is also open to the petitioner to challenge that order in any matter which may be open to her in-law. But as the matter stands to-day, there is no reason to deny the petitioner the issuance of the certificate, not a provisional, but a completion certificate, in recognition of her successfully completing her M.B.B.S. course...” This Court again in Umapathy v. The Director of Education, 1991 W.L.R. 898, considered the same issue, wherein a completion certificate was refused on the ground that the candidate therein has given a false certificate. Though this Court had dismissed the writ petition, directed the authorities to take into the peculiar facts of that case into consideration that the petitioner has finished the course and the authorities therein also are partly responsible for delaying the enquiry to consider the issue, on human angle and pass orders within a stipulated time. In view of the decisions cited supra, I am of the view that the writ petition W.P.No.598 of 1992 has got to be allowed. The view I take since the daughter of the petitioner has been allowed to write examination right through, by interim orders of this Court and applying the principle of equitable estoppel, I am inclined to pass this order. As the petitioner’s daughter has completed the course viz. B.E. (Civil) in May 1993, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not think that the pendency of the enquiry can stand in the way of petitioner’s daughter in obtain-ing the degree. Instead of granting the prayer asked for, since this Court can mould the prayer to suit the occasion, a direction is to issue to the respondents in W.P.No.598 of 1992 to publish the results of the petitioner’s daughter one M.P.Sayee Sankari, who joined B.E. (Civil) course in the second respondent College, within a period of| four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer has to proceed with the enquiry of the petitioner’s daughter and he has nothing to do with the order passed in W.P.No.598 of 1992. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.