Judgment : 1. The Case of the Petitioner as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and briefly stated, is as follows: The Petitioner belongs to the Community of Konda Reddy which is a scheduled Tribe according to the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. She was so described as Konda Reddy in the S.S.L.C. book. Her mother had been given a community certificate by the Tahsildar, Mettur Dam as early as on 19. 1978 and she is working as an Organiser in Ihe Nutritious Noon Meal Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu from 1984, Some of the other relatives of the petitioner are also described as Konda Reddis. She studied the 12th Standard in the Nirmala Higher Secondary School, Kolathur and applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course. She was selected for the said course. On 16. 1995 the second respondent Selection Committee had written a letter to the petitioner directing her to produce a community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer on or before 26. 1995. 2. The petitioner had applied as early as on 110. 1994 to the R.D.O., the third respondent herein, to issue a community certificate, but in the R.D.O., did not make enquiries and did not issue certificate. Whenever the father of the petitioner visited him he was informed that the matter was being looked into. Since the petitioner was running the risk of losing her selection to the M.B.B.S. course she was obliged to file W.P.No.8322 of 1995 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the R.D.O. to issue community certificate pursuant to her application dated 110. 1994. The said writ petition was allowed on 30.6.1995 with a direction to the third respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s application within two weeks. Inspite of service of copy of the order, the third respondent has not disposed of the application of the petitioner filed for issue of community certificate. Having regard to the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner there should have been no delay or difficulty in issuing the community certificate. 3. In the circumstances, the petitioner, having no other alternative or efficacious remedy, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to join the first respondent college pursuant to the selection and allotment, on the grounds, viz. 3. In the circumstances, the petitioner, having no other alternative or efficacious remedy, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to join the first respondent college pursuant to the selection and allotment, on the grounds, viz. i. The S.S.L.C. Book, the community certificate already issued by the competent officer, and other records such as community certificates issued to her parents were sufficient to establish her community; ii. If the Revenue authorities were to take time for issue the community certificate, candidates selected provisionally should have been admitted subject to further verification as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in several cases; iii. Inspite of the direction, the third respondent did not dispose of the application filed for issue of community certificate; and iv. The petitioner, even though has been selected for the M.B.B.S. degree course, cannot be denied the benefit for want of community certificate from the third respondent for no fault of her. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had applied for M.B.B.S. degree curse for 1995-96 session under the Scheduled Tribe reservation quota she did not submit the community certificate obtained from the R.D.O. along wim the application as required by clause 9 of the Prospectus; she was intimated by the second respondent, vide his proceeding No.ll516/SC/UG/95 dated 16. 1995 informing that she had not annexed the requisite community certificate along with the application dated 6. 1995, and instructed her to produce the same, and to collect the intimation letter on or before 26. 1995; since the petitioner failed to produce to requisite certificate on or before 26. 1995 the next candidate in the scheduled Tribe quota, one Miss K. Kavitha with 253.33 marks was considered and selected she has joined the course on 7. 95. .5. It is the further case of the respondent that the letter dated 20.6.1995 of the petitioner seeking extension of time for a period of 15 days was not considered in view of the clear instructions in the Prospectus as follows: .“Request for extension of time for submission of documents called for after the prescribed date and time at the Selection Committee Office will not be entertained”. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, the second respondent has prayed for dismissed of the writ petition. .6. Mr. S. Duraisamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that having regard to the records, it was amply established that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe, inasmuch as in her S.S.L.C. book it is an recorded, even the certificates given to her close relatives including her mother that they belong to Konda Reddy long back, could have been accepted; the best efforts made by the petitioner even 8 months before her selection to M.B.B.S. courses to get a community certificate from the third respondent were in vain; and added to this the petitioner did file Writ Petition No.8322 of 1995 seeking a mandamus to the third respondent to issue the community certificate which was allowed on 30.6.1995. The third respondent inspite’of the direction to dispose of the application within two weeks did not do so. The petitioner cannot be put to difficulty for no fault of her, and she cannot be denied admission when she was selected on merits in the -Scheduled Tribe category. In a matter like this the authorities should have admitted the petitioner provisionally subject to further verification as per directions and guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government ofAndra Pradesh v. Laveti Girt and another, 199S (II) CTC 112 : A.I.R 1995 SC 1506. He drew my attention in particular to paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 of the said judgment. 7. On the other hand, Mrs.Saraswathi Prasad, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner failed to produce the community certificate from the R.D.O. as required along with the application made for admission on 6. 1995; she did not produce the community certificate on or before 26. 1995 as directed by the second respondent ~ the Selection Committee. Hence the seat was allotted to the next candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe on the basis of merit and the candidate Miss. K. Kavitha has already joined the course on 7. 1995; the request of the petitioner for extension of time by 15 days more, vide her letter dated 20.6.1995 was not considered as such a request for extension of time could not be entertained after the prescribed date for submission of documents by the selection committee. 8. K. Kavitha has already joined the course on 7. 1995; the request of the petitioner for extension of time by 15 days more, vide her letter dated 20.6.1995 was not considered as such a request for extension of time could not be entertained after the prescribed date for submission of documents by the selection committee. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, the averements made by the petitioner with regard to the community certificate issued to her mother and other relatives is not denied. So also about the community mentioned in her S.S.L.C. book. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed that although the petitioner did not produce the community certificate from the R.D.O. along with the application on 6. 1995 she was granted time to produce the community certificate on or before 26. 1995 . The petitioner by her lettter dated 20.6.1995 sought for extension of time to produce the community certificate giving he details, within the last date fixed for producing the community certificate i.e. 26. 1995 by the selection committee. 10. The petitioner applied for the community certificate to the R.D.O. as early as on 110. 1994. Almost 8 months earlier, but the R.D.O. did not take steps or issue the certificate. Under the circumstances the petitioner even filed Writ Petition 8322 of 1995 seeking a Writ of mandamus to the third respondent to issue community certificate which was allowed on 30.6.1995 directing the third respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner made for issue of community certificate within two weeks. Inspite of the said direction also, the third respondent did not pass orders on the application for issue of community certificate. Thus the petitioner did not spare any efforts. She did everything possible. Under the circumstances, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Leveti Gin and another, 1995 (II) CTC 112 : AIR 1995 SC 1506 helps the petitioner. .11. Thus the petitioner did not spare any efforts. She did everything possible. Under the circumstances, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Leveti Gin and another, 1995 (II) CTC 112 : AIR 1995 SC 1506 helps the petitioner. .11. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus:- .In case of any delay in finalishing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf of appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official, and such admission or appointment should be onl y provisional, subject to the result of the enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee” 12. In the same judgment, in paragraphs 14 and 15 the Supreme Court has stated as to how the cases of the persons should be dealt in case such certificates obtained are found to be false. In the light of what is stated in the Supreme Court judgment aforementioned, the petitioner ought to have been permitted to joint the first respondent college provisionally subject to further verification. .13. The contention of the respondent No.2 that the request of the petitioner for extension of time to produce the community certificate made on 20.6.1995 was not considered in view of the instructions in the prospectus that the request for extension of time for submission documents called for after the prescribed date and time at the selection committee office would not be entertained is untenable. From the counter affidavit filed, it is clear that die petitioner was granted time to produce die certificate on or before 26. 1995, and the application for extension was made before the expiry of that date. Hence the said contention of the respondent No.2 in this regard is to be rejected. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 14. In the result, I pass the following order i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The respondent Nos. 1995, and the application for extension was made before the expiry of that date. Hence the said contention of the respondent No.2 in this regard is to be rejected. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 14. In the result, I pass the following order i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to permit the petitioner to join the first respondent college in the first year M.B.B.S. degree course provisionally, pursuant to her selection for the academic year 1995-96 itself, on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent, subject to the result of the application made by the petitioner to the third respondent on 110. 1994. In mis regard the third respondent has to dispose of the said application as already directed by the order of this Court in W.P.No. 8322 of 1995 without any further loss of time, it is not already disposed of; iii. The petitioner shall be permitted to take the examinations only after she completes the course and fulfills the minimum requirements of attendance; and iv. No costs.