Judgment :- Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings in A.4.7996/99 dated 6.5.2000 by issuing a writ of certiorari. 3. A Community Certificate dated 12.8.1980 had been issued to the petitioner by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar,Nanguneri indicating that the petitioner belongs to 'Hindu Kattunayakkan' community which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. On the basis of the such certificate, the petitioner had completed his studies. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected for employment. At that stage, the petitioner was called upon to produce fresh community certificate from Revenue Divisional Office. An application to the Revenue Divisional Officer was submitted and the same was rejected under the impugned order. 4. A counter has been filed. In the counter the fact that the certificate was issued in the year 1980 has not been denied. However,it is stated that such certificate had been issued on the basis of incorrect facts and that the matter has to be decided by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 5.It has been indicated in the impugned order as follows: "4(4) The Community Certificate obtained from ther Tahsildar,Radhapuram Taluk and the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 12.8.1990 are bona fide as stated by the applicant. It was found out from the Enquiry Officer that this Certificate was obtained on the basis of wrong information. So these certificates are not bonafide." 6. In my opinion, such a question was not to be decided by the District Collector. Since the certificate had already been issued in the year 1980 and since there is no dispute that such certificate had been issued by competent authority, the Collector should not have rejected the application for issuance of Community Certificate in the proper form. In this connection, the decision reported in JT 1997(7) SC 660 (R.Kandasamy VS The Chief Engineer,Madras Port Trust) is relied on. In the aforesaid decision, it is observed as follows: "5. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.89 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purpose 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. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.89 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purpose 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. XXX XXX XXX 7."We clarify that we have only dealt with the legal aspect of the matter and have not pronounced upon the genuineness for which if there is any doubt (though none appear to have been raised in the High Court and none was projected before us either) the respondent shall have to hold a proper enquiry but till that certificate is not cancelled, the certificate shall be treated as a valid certificate issued by the competent authority." 8. Following the aforesaid decision, I direct the second respondent to issue the community certificate in the appropriate format on the basis of the community certificate issued on 12.8.1980 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order. 9. However, it is made clear that even though as per the present direction, a community certificate in the proper format shall be issued to the petitioner, the question as to whether the petitioner belongs to that particular community can be raised before the appropriate State Level Scrutiny Committee which can go into the question of cancellation of the Community Certificate. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.