Judgment : Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 20.11.1992 cancelling the community certificate issued by Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 27. 1989, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: Petitioner has passed B.Sc., degree in 1989 and registered her name in the Employment Exchange at Tirunelveli. She belongs to Sholaga community which is one of the Scheduled Tribe as per the list of communities published both by the State and the Central Governments. She was selected and appointed as a Scientific Assistant on 19. 1989 in the Heavy Water Plant at Tuticorin, the Government of India undertaking. She was appointed under a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe community. Third respondent herein by certificate dated 27. 1989 issued a community certificate and certified that the petitioner who is a daughter of P.Narayana Sholaga of Pathai village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District belongs to Sholaga community which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe as per G.O.Ms.No.1773, S.W., dated 26. 1984. Petitioners father was also issued a community certificate certified by the third respondent on 23. 1968 stating that he belongs to Sholaga Tribe which is recognised as a Schedule Tribe. He was appointed as a Clerk in the Income-tax Department under Scheduled Tribe quota and he expired in service while working as Supervisor in the Income-tax Department on 19. 1989. Petitioners brother Singaravelan, her sisters’ N.Pitchumani and N.Jayalakshmi were given community certificate as “Hindu Sholaga” by the third respondent. Petitioners Transfer Certificate, Secondary School Leaving Certificate and her fathers Service Register show that they belong to “Hindu Sholaga” community. Petitioners maternal grand fathers brothers son viz., A.Maruthiah of Puliangudi, Sivagiri Taluk has also been given a community certificate as “Hindu Sholaga” and he was nominated as one of the member of Tirunelveli District Harijan Welfare Committee. He is now holding the office of the President of Tirunelveli District Sholaga Community Central Association. 3. It is further stated that in the whole of Tirunelveli District more than 100 community certificates were given to the persons belonging to Sholaga community and they were appointed in Government services in the Scheduled Tribe quota and all are functioning. He is now holding the office of the President of Tirunelveli District Sholaga Community Central Association. 3. It is further stated that in the whole of Tirunelveli District more than 100 community certificates were given to the persons belonging to Sholaga community and they were appointed in Government services in the Scheduled Tribe quota and all are functioning. The Sholaga Community is called as “Sholagar” or “Sholavar” in Tamil and this is made clear in the Tamil Nadu Government Tamil list of communities published in Tamil in the year 1965-66 and in Serial No.19 it is stated that, Sholagar is a Scheduled Tribe community. Further, Tahsildar, Shencotta in his proceedings dated 210. 1970 certified that Sholavar and Sholagar are one and the same community. The first respondent also recommended that, Sholagan community found in Tirunelveli District as Tribal people and recommended for construction of dwelling houses for the Sholagan community people under the Housing Scheme for Harijans. The second respondent on the basis of some complaint submitted a report to the first respondent stating that there is no Sholaga community people existing in Tirunelveli District. The first respondent based on the erroneous illegal report, through his notice dated 8. 1992 called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation regarding the report of the second respondent and further directed the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 29. 1992 for verification of the records. She had submitted a detailed reply on 29. 1992. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent on the particular date and stated in detail about the existence of Sholaga community people in Tirunelveli District with documentary evidence. Ultimately, without appreciating the materials placed, on the basis of the illegal report of the second respondent, the first respondent cancelled the community certificate issued by the third respondent on 27. 1989 and the said order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The first respondent-Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that no instructions have been issued by the Government to issue Scheduled Tribe community certificate to persons belonging to Sholagar community. Only Sholaga community is included in the list of Schedule Tribe community who are traditionally performing limestone kiln work are locally known as Sholagar or Sholavar or Sholagan. It is stated that no instructions have been issued by the Government to issue Scheduled Tribe community certificate to persons belonging to Sholagar community. Only Sholaga community is included in the list of Schedule Tribe community who are traditionally performing limestone kiln work are locally known as Sholagar or Sholavar or Sholagan. It is stated that, at the instance of the employer of the writ petitioner a detailed enquiry was conducted by the second respondent. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was personally heard by the first respondent on 29. 1992 and then on 110. 1992. The local enquiry conducted revealed that the writ petitioner does not belong to Sholaga Scheduled Tribe Community, but belongs to Thondaiman community which is a Most Backward Class community. Enquiry conducted in several cases reveal that they do not belong to scheduled tribe community and their certificates were cancelled after following the procedure. Now they have formed an Association to express their demand of getting Scheduled Tribe community certificate for them. They perform limestone kiln work. They are Thondaiman only. They have not migrated from hill areas. In the census record of 1951, 1961 there was no Scheduled Tribe community in Nanguneri Taluk. Enquiry among the cross section of the people have revealed that the writ petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Sholaga community but belongs to “Thondaiman” most backward classes community. The petitioner by misrepresentation of facts, obtained Sholaga, Scheduled Tribe Community certificate with which she got employment under quota meant for Schedule Tribe candidates for which she is not entitled to. With these averments he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.N.Paul Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for respondents. 6. The point for consideration is whether the first respondent is justified in passing the impugned order cancelling the community certificate dated 27. 1992 issued in favour of the petitioner by the third respondent. 7. There is no dispute that petitioner was appointed as Scientific Assistant in the Heavy Water Plant, Tuticorin which is one of the Government of India undertaking on 19. 1989 under a post reserved for Schedule Tribe community. The third respondent herein on 27. 1989 issued a community certificate, wherein he certified that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Sholaga community which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe as per G.O.Ms.No.1773, S.W., dated 26. 1984. 1989 under a post reserved for Schedule Tribe community. The third respondent herein on 27. 1989 issued a community certificate, wherein he certified that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Sholaga community which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe as per G.O.Ms.No.1773, S.W., dated 26. 1984. On the basis of the request made by the employer and on the direction of the first respondent, the second respondent Assistant Collector conducted enquiry and submitted a report. It is not disputed that, from 111. 1989 onwards Revenue Divisional Officer alone are empowered to issue community certificates. In other words, prior to the said date, the Tahsildars are competent to issue community certificate on proper verification. The community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the third respondent is dated 27. l989. In other words, the Tahsildar, Nanguneri was authorised to issue community certificate at the date when he issued the community certificate in favour of the petitioner. Before considering the impugned order of the first respondent, now I shall consider the materials which support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on the following documents. .• 1. Secondary School Leaving Certificate of P.Narayanan - father of the petitioner; .• 2. Letter dated 29. 1983 from the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chennai-5 to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Tirunelveli; .• 3. Copy of the letter dated 212. 1983 from the Additional Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department addressed to the Collector, Tirunelveli; .• 4. Community certificate of N.Singaravelan-brother of the petitioner; .• 5. Community certificate of N.Jayalakshmi-sister of the petitioner; .• 6. Community certificate of N.Pitchumani-sister of the petitioner; and 7. Community certificate of A.Maruthiah - Maternal Grand Fathers Brothers son (uncle) of the petitioner. 8. As stated earlier, on the basis of the request made by the employer and on the direction of the first respondent, second respondent conducted enquiry and submitted a report, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner and her relatives belong to Thondaiman community are known as Sholagar. It is also stated that there hereditary work is maintenance of limestone klin only. In the light of the report of the second respondent, the first respondent issued a show cause notice asking her why the community certificate No.797408, dated 27. 1989 should not be cancelled and also directed her to appear for personal enquiry. It is also stated that there hereditary work is maintenance of limestone klin only. In the light of the report of the second respondent, the first respondent issued a show cause notice asking her why the community certificate No.797408, dated 27. 1989 should not be cancelled and also directed her to appear for personal enquiry. Copy of the report of the second respondent was also enclosed along with the show cause notice. She submitted her explanation on 29. 1992 and reiterated her stand in the oral enquiry. The first respondent after referring the letter of the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 20.5.1983 and after referring a Text Book written by “Therston” arrived a conclusion that, On the basis of the information furnished in the text book, the first respondent has rejected all other materials produced by the petitioner. Likewise, after referring the community certificate of the father of the petitioner as Scheduled Tribe, the first respondent failed to render any finding. However, on the basis of the letter dated 20.5.1983 of the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department came to the conclusion that the entries in the community certificate of the petitioner, petitioners father as well as his Secondary School Leaving Certificate was wrongly mentioned and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Except the above said discussion, the first respondent has not considered all the materials in detail. Now, I shall consider whether the petitioner has made out a case in support of her claim or not. 9. At the foremost, I shall consider the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gayatrilaxmi B.Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra Gayatrilaxmi B.Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra Gayatrilaxmi B.Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1338. Before considering the said decision, it is to be noted that the third respondent issued community certificate even on 27. 1989 only after verification. The Tahsildar, Nanguneri third respondent herein had also issued community certificate to the father of the petitioner stating that, he belongs to “Hindu Sholaga” community. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner worked in the Income-tax Department. Community certificate issued in favour of her father is stands even now. In such circumstance, their Lordships in that decision have observed. “13. Likewise the caste certificate issued to the appellant was not issued in a casual manner but after verification of relevant records. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner worked in the Income-tax Department. Community certificate issued in favour of her father is stands even now. In such circumstance, their Lordships in that decision have observed. “13. Likewise the caste certificate issued to the appellant was not issued in a casual manner but after verification of relevant records. Similarly, the caste certificate issued to the father of the appellant was not casual one but based on the following particular: …… …… 14. Taking into consideration these certificates and also the order of the Government dated 9. 1981 certifying that Abinash Praphakar Nagpure, first cousin of the appellant belongs to” Halba “ community, we are of the view that the rejection of the appellants claim especially when there is no other evidence placed contra to suspect the proof produced by the appellant and without appreciating the vital document placed before the Committee is not correct.” As stated earlier, even though the District Collector has referred to the certificate of the father of the petitioner, in para 7 he has not given any finding. In the light of the above factual position and in view of the observation made by their Lordships in the above referred decision, taking contra view by the first respondent cannot be accepted. 10. Apart from the certificate of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner has also produced community certificate issued in favour of her brother, sisters, wherein it is specifically stated that they belong to” Hindu Sholaga “ community. Another document which supports the case of the petitioner is a letter dated 29. 1983 from Thiru T.M.Arumugham, I.A.S., Director, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chennai-5 to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli. Since the said letter supports the case of the petitioners claim, the same is produced hereunder. It is clear that, even though in the impugned order the first respondent says that, there is no community as Sholaga in Tirunelveli District, the said letter of the Director who is a competent authority falsifies the claim made by the first respondent. 11. It is clear from the copy of the letter No.95350/ADW. II/83-I dated 212. 1983 from the Additional Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department to the Collector of Tirunelveli, that the Sholaga community has been included as Scheduled Tribe in the list (Sl.No.34) throughout the State, hence the question for area restriction does not arise. 12. 11. It is clear from the copy of the letter No.95350/ADW. II/83-I dated 212. 1983 from the Additional Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department to the Collector of Tirunelveli, that the Sholaga community has been included as Scheduled Tribe in the list (Sl.No.34) throughout the State, hence the question for area restriction does not arise. 12. As stated earlier, the petitioners uncle viz., A Maruthiah of Puliangudi, Sivagiri Taluk who has also been given community certificate as “Hindu Sholaga” based on the recommendation of the first respondent and Director of Harijan Welfare, the Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department in Memorandum No.34796/HWIIII/75, dated 18. 1975 nominated him as one of the Member of the Tirunelveli District Harijan Welfare Committee. According to the petitioner, said A.Maruthaiah is holding the office of the President of Tirunelveli District Sholaga Community Central Association. The petitioner has proved her relationship with A.Maruthaiah. The said aspect also supports the case of the petitioner. 13. Another infirmity in the impugned order is that, even though copy of the report of the Sub-Collector was furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice, admittedly, the Enquiry Officer viz., the Sub-Collector obtained statement from several persons behind the back of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the District Collector considered not only the report of the Sub-Collector, but also the entire proceedings, the report based on the statement of several persons who were not examined in the presence of the petitioner cannot be relied upon as per the decision of this Court reported in D.Selvaraju v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited D.Selvaraju v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited D.Selvaraju v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited 1991 Writ L.R. 68. The following conclusion of Mishra, J. (as he then was) is very relevant. “5. In the instant case, however the quashing of the order of the Collector may not be necessary. The Collector may have come to a right conclusion. The Revenue Divisional Officer being a responsible officer, was not expected to report that villagers gave statements supporting the allegations that the petitioners belong to Forward Caste and do not belong to Scheduled Tribes Community. The Collector may have come to a right conclusion. The Revenue Divisional Officer being a responsible officer, was not expected to report that villagers gave statements supporting the allegations that the petitioners belong to Forward Caste and do not belong to Scheduled Tribes Community. Yet, to satisfy the ends of justice, lest the petitioners may have a grievance that adequate opportunity of being heard was not given to them, in my view, a post-facto enquiry to test the veracity of the report of the third respondent with reference to the statements of the villages will be necessary. On the facts of this case, I am inclined to order and accordingly direct the Collector, Tiruchirappalli, the second respondent, either himself to verify the statements of the villagers by examining them afresh in the presence of the petitioners or appoint any other officer to enquire into the allegation leveled against the petitioners with reference to the statements of the individual villagers in the presence of the petitioners.” In the light of the above decision, the impugned order of the District Collector relying on the report and other proceedings of the Sub-Collector cannot be sustained. 14. Decision of mine P.Sathasivam, J. reported in M.Ramamurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu M.Ramamurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu M.Ramamurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998)3 MLJ. 699 : (1998)3 C.T.C. 638 also supports the case of the petitioner. 15. The following conclusion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Kandasamy v. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust R.Kandasamy v. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust R.Kandasamy v. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust (1997)7 S.C.C. 505 also support the case of the petitioner. “6. In our opinion the community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 111. 1989 is a good and valid community certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.” As stated earlier, in our case the third respondent had issued community certificate in favour of the petitioner on 27. 1989 i.e., well prior to 111. 1989. .16. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.” As stated earlier, in our case the third respondent had issued community certificate in favour of the petitioner on 27. 1989 i.e., well prior to 111. 1989. .16. With reference to the existence of valid community certificate of the father of the delinquent and in the absence of the any change of circumstance, S.S.Subramani, J. in S.Natarajan v. District Collector, Tuticorin S.Natarajan v. District Collector, Tuticorin S.Natarajan v. District Collector, Tuticorin A.I.R. 1999 Mad. 241 has held that,” 24. In this case, there is no change of circumstances. The community certificate was found to be true and genuine by the District Collector in 1988 and that has become final. The only circumstances now is petitioner asked for community certificate for his children. That will not be a ground for questioning his community certificate. There is no change of circumstances as on date.” .In our case also I have already stated that, father of the petitioner is having valid community certificate and he was employed in the Income-tax Department based on the said certificate. In such circumstance, while agreeing with the view expressed by S.S.Subramani, J., I hold that the first respondent is not justified in doubting the community of the petitioner. .17. Learned Government Advocate by referring the decision of the Apex Court reported in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 94 would contend that, it would not open to this Court to give a finding regarding community status of the petitioner when there is a special Community for the same. I am unable to accept the said contention, since we are concerned with the impugned order passed by the first respondent cancelling the community certificate issued by the third respondent to the petitioner on 27. 1989. The petitioner has already demonstrated that, her father was having valid community certificate, employed in the Income-tax Department based on the said certificate, letter dated 29. 1983 of the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, another letter dated 212. 1983 of the Additional Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department to the District Collector, Tirunelveli, community certificate of her Uncle Mr.A.Maruthaiah, I hold that the petitioner belongs to” Hindu Sholaga “ community and her community certificate dated 27. 1983 of the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, another letter dated 212. 1983 of the Additional Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department to the District Collector, Tirunelveli, community certificate of her Uncle Mr.A.Maruthaiah, I hold that the petitioner belongs to” Hindu Sholaga “ community and her community certificate dated 27. 1989 is genuine and no circumstances is made out for remanding the matter before the first respondent for a fresh enquiry. In other words, the community certificate of the petitioner dated 27. 1989 fully satisfies the requirements under law to hold that she belongs to” Hindu Sholaga “ community. 18. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 20.11.1992 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps., are closed.