Judgment :- The petitioner prays for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to confirm the status of the petitioner as a regular employee of the respondent bank and to extend all benefits as applicable to regular employee of the UCO Bank including the promotion due to the petitioner. 2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of this writ petition: The petitioner, who had obtained a certificate from the concerned Tahsildar on 15.6.1988 as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community, was appointed by the respondent as Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier on 30.9.1988. Since then, he has been working as such. 3. However, on 24.11.1992, proceedings were initiated for verification of the community to which the petitioner belongs and the genuineness of the certificate obtained by him. However, as proceedings were sought to be initiated by the Collector, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.11404 of 1998. This Court, by order dated 21.12.2001, directed the enquiry to be made only by the appropriate authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's Case ( AIR 1995 SC 94 ). 4. Subsequently, though notices were received by the petitioner for enquiry, the enquiry was not conducted and the earlier certificate issued by the Tahsildat dated 15.6.1988 continues to be valid. However, on the pretext that proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of regularisation as well as promotion to which he became eligible. Though the petitioner's name finds a place in the list of employees eligible for promotion, provided by the Employees' Union dated 29.3.2003, it is stated that the petitioner's case was withheld due to the pending Court case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, as long as the community certificate issued by the competent authority is not cancelled, the certificate thus issued shall be valid and the authorities cannot insist on the production of any fresh certificate. The petitioner is being deprived of regularisation as well as promotion only on the basis of apprehensions entertained by the respondents and the petitioner is put to serious prejudice. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and even though notices have been served on the respondents there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 7. The petitioner is being deprived of regularisation as well as promotion only on the basis of apprehensions entertained by the respondents and the petitioner is put to serious prejudice. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and even though notices have been served on the respondents there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 7. It is settled proposition of law that as far as community certificate is concerned, as long as the certificate issued by the competent authority as on the date of issue is intact and not cancelled in a manner known to law, it shall continue to be operative and all benefits arising out of the said certificate cannot be denied. In R.Kandasamy V. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust ( (1997) 7 S.C.C. 505 ), the Supreme Court has held that the certificate once issued by the competent officer has to be held valid and the action of the respondent in refusing to accept the certificate and to insist on fresh certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer was invalid. Therefore, even in a case of verification of the genuineness of the community certificate, till the certificate is found to be false or invalid and consequently cancelled in a manner known to law, the certificate will continue to be operative and the employee shall be entitled to all the regular benefits. In this case, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988. His services were not regularised in spite of the fact that more than fifteen years have passed by. There is no justification in the refusal on the part of the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner or to deny the promotion on the ground that the genuineness of the community certificate is pending consideration. The further reason that the claims of the petitioner were pending before the Court is also not factually correct. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of and the direction of this Court giving liberty to the respondents to take steps for cancellation of the certificate in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case ( AIR 1995 SC 94 ), admittedly, has not been complied with as on date. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioner to be regularised in service and also to be considered for further promotion cannot at all be denied. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioner to be regularised in service and also to be considered for further promotion cannot at all be denied. With the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.