Judgment :- The petitioner prays for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in proceedings dated 18.11.2003, to quash the same and to consequently direct the third respondent to issue a community certificate to the petitioner's minor son as belonging to Hindu Kaniyan – Scheduled Tribe Community. 2. The petitioner - father of the minor son V.V.Sujith had applied for a community certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanyakumari, which was rejected on 11.10.2000. An appeal was filed before the Kanyakumari District Vigilance Committee, which was also rejected on 13.10.2001. Further appeal to the State Committee - the first respondent, was also dismissed on 18.11.2003. Hence, the writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a native of Chappad Village in Kerala State. He was married and the minor son was born on 27.12.1985 at Kanyakumari District. The birth of his son was duly registered and therefore, he was a resident of Ottayalvillai of Kanyakumari District. After his marriage, the petitioner had also shifted his residence permanently to Ottayalvillai in Kanyakumari District and thus, he became a permanent resident of the said place for the past several years. He also states that his name finds place in the voters' list of the said village and a ration card has also been issued disclosing that he is a permanent resident of the said village. 4. The petitioner further states that he belongs to "Hindu Ganaka" (Kaniyan) Community, which is classified as Other Backward Class in the State of Kerala. He has also been issued with a certificate by the Tahsildar of Karthigappally Taluk of Kerala State after due verification. According to the petitioner, he was therefore eligible to be certified as belonging to "Kaniyan Community". He had applied before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, for the issuance of certificate for his son. However, the said request was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 11.10.2000. The petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition aggrieved by the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the further orders by the District Committee and the State Committee. 5. However, the said request was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 11.10.2000. The petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition aggrieved by the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the further orders by the District Committee and the State Committee. 5. Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner belongs to the community of Hindu Ganaka, which is classified as OBC in Kerala State, he belongs to Kaniyan community, which is classified in Tamilnadu as Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu. Reference was made to Serial No.29 in the list of Other Backward Class candidates of Kerala and Serial No.8 of the Tamil Nadu list of Scheduled Tribe community. Though both the District Committee and the State Committee agreed that Hindu Ganaka and Kaniyan referred to the same community, but at the same time have adopted the view that it would be referable only to Serial No.48 in the Tamil Nadu Backward Class List and not to Serial No.8 in the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Tribe List. The respondents ought to have seen the certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Karthigappally Taluk, Kerala, certifying that 'Hindu Ganaka' Community would mean and correspond only 'Kaniyan' Community. Enough evidence was produced to show that the petitioner himself, his father and grand father have been practicing only medicine and that the Kaniyans Practicing Medicine in Tamilnadu are classified only as Scheduled Tribes. Though certificates relating to two other relatives were furnished to the State Committee long before the orders were passed, the same were ignored and not taken into account. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the orders of both the District Committee as well as the State Committee and pointed out some of the contradictions in the approach by both the authorities. The petitioner's family was settled in Kanyakumari District for a long time and sufficient materials were also produced that they are now permanent residents of Kanyakumari District. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader however contends that reference to Serial No.29 in the list of Other Backward Classes in Kerala and Serial No.48 in the list of Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu would show that both referred to the same group of communities. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader however contends that reference to Serial No.29 in the list of Other Backward Classes in Kerala and Serial No.48 in the list of Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu would show that both referred to the same group of communities. Therefore, there was no justification in the demand of the petitioner that he should be treated as 'Kaniyan' under Serial No.8 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu. The materials produced by the petitioner had been examined by the authorities in detail. There was no substance in the claims of the petitioner. With reference to the reliance placed on the certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Karthigappally Taluk, learned Additional Government Pleader contends that he is not the competent authority to certify that a particular community is classified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in Tamilnadu. The State Level Committee is comprised of experts on the subject and they have considered all the materials. Therefore, the certificate of the Tahsildar of another State cannot have any significance. 7. To appreciate the mutual contentions, it is necessary to extract the relevant entries in the Government Orders relating to both States. 1. Serial No.29 in the list of Other Backward Classes in Kerala State: Kanisu or Kaniyar, Panicker, Kani or Kaniyan(Ganaka) or Kanisan or Kamman. 2. Serial No.48 in the list of Backward Classes in Tamilnadu State: Kani, Kanisu, Kaniyar, Panikkar. 3. Serial No.8 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Tamilnadu State : Kaniyan, Kanyan. 8. While the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, rejected the application on the ground that in terms of the communication from the Tahsildar, Karthigappally, Kerala State, dated 4.8.2000, the petitioner was a resident of Kerala and that he was not eligible to be certified as Hindu Kaniyan, the District Committee, after observing that the petitioner had admitted that he belongs to Hindu Ganaka Community, has observed as follows: " 4. The District Vigilance Committee examined the Appeal Petition and all the connected records in detail. The details of the Community Kaniyan, otherwise known as Kani, Kanisan, Ganika, meaning an astrologer are given in page 178 to 199 of Volume III of the Book "Castes and Tribes of South India" written by Edgar Thurston and K.Rangachari. The District Vigilance Committee examined the Appeal Petition and all the connected records in detail. The details of the Community Kaniyan, otherwise known as Kani, Kanisan, Ganika, meaning an astrologer are given in page 178 to 199 of Volume III of the Book "Castes and Tribes of South India" written by Edgar Thurston and K.Rangachari. As per the accounts given in the book, it is evident that the Kaniyan Community otherwise known as "Ganga" is a civilized community put in the profession of astrology, military training etc. in erstwhile Travancore State and the Community is not connected with Tribal race. The Community Ganaka known as Kani or Kaniyan is notified as Other Backward Class in Kerala State vide Sl.No.29 of the Gazette Notification. The same community is noted in the list of Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu also vide Sl.No.48 of the Backward Class list. As per the Nilgris District Gezetteer, the details of the population of Scheduled Tribes in Nilgris District in 1981 Census is given in Table No.5. As per item No.4 of the Table, the population of Kaniyan Tribe was one only during 1981 and it is obvious that the Kaniyan Tribal Community is very scarce. In the light of the above said facts, it is decided that the Ganaga Community otherwise known as Kani or Kaniyan, classified as Backward Class in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala cannot be considered as "Kaniyan Scheduled Tribe" Community notified in Sl.No.8 of (Kaniyan, Kanyan) in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu." 9. On appeal, the State Committee has also held against the petitioner. According to the State Committee, the petitioner had admitted that he belongs to Ganaka Community, which is classified as Serial No.29 in Kerala Other Backward Classes List. The same group of communities have been enlisted only as Backward Class under Serial No.48 in Tamilnadu list. The State Committee has further observed as follows: "12. The synonyms between these two communities Ganaka and Kaniyan have been distinctly made out in the Kerala Gazette Notification, according to which the community of Kani or Kaniyan is classified as a OBC under Sl.No.29 of the list. The Gazette Notification clearly reveals the fact that the Kaniyan or otherwise known as Ganaka in Kerala State. The synonyms between these two communities Ganaka and Kaniyan have been distinctly made out in the Kerala Gazette Notification, according to which the community of Kani or Kaniyan is classified as a OBC under Sl.No.29 of the list. The Gazette Notification clearly reveals the fact that the Kaniyan or otherwise known as Ganaka in Kerala State. Therefore it is undisputedly accepted by the Appellant based on the said Kerala Gazette Notification that the community Kani or Kaniyan which is otherwise known as Ganaka are one and the same and hence these two communities are classified under OBCs. It may also be noted from the Gazette Notification of the Government of Tamil Nadu that the community "Kani" has been classified only as a Backward Class along with other equivalent communities Kanisu, Kaniyar, Panikkar. It is pertinent to note that these equivalent communities Kanisu, Kaniyar, Panikar have also been notified only as OBC in the Kerala State. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the caste Ganaka prevailing in Kerala State is only equivalent to Kani community. It is otherwise known as Kaniyan in Kerala State. There is no basis or evidence to show that this Kaniyan community which is notified as OBC in Kerala State is equivalent to the Kaniyan community which is notified under the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu." 10. The State Committee has also relied on the opinion of the Anthropologist Member, which was to the effect that the appellant was not in a position to establish his cultural or tribal customs and that he was unable to trace any relationship with any of the members belonging to Kaniyan Community and therefore, it was to be concluded that the appellant did not belong to Kaniyan Tribal Community. 11. A perusal of the report of the Anthropologist Member and the actual reason given by the State Committee as extracted above appear to be on different lines. The Anthropologist Member has agreed that the Kaniyans of Tamil Nadu are religio-medical practitioners and that though the appellant also claims to be medical practitioner, he was not able to point out or refer to any of their relatives as belonging to the Kaniyan Tribal Community. The Anthropologist Member has agreed that the Kaniyans of Tamil Nadu are religio-medical practitioners and that though the appellant also claims to be medical practitioner, he was not able to point out or refer to any of their relatives as belonging to the Kaniyan Tribal Community. However, in contrast, the approach of the State Committee appears to be that as the appellant undoubtedly falls under Serial No.29 in the list of Other Backward Classes in Kerala State, the equivalent entry in Tamil Nadu is only Serial No.48 in the Backward Classes list. 12. I am inclined to hold that the approach of the State Committee in trying to view the issue on a narrow comparison of the communities shown in the lists of Other Backward Classes in Kerala and Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu cannot be sustained. There cannot be any dispute over the position that classification of communities in different States would depend on the socia-economic conditions of the respective community in each State and that a community classified as Other Backward Class-Backward Class in one State could be classified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in another State. Then the test would be whether the applicant satisfies the requirements of being an ordinary resident of the State in which he requires the certificate. But, the approach of the State Committee appears to be one of treating the entire entry in Serial No.29 of the Kerala Other Backward Class List as equivalent to Serial No.48 in Tamil Nadu Backward Classes list, which does not appear to be proper. Serial No.29 in Kerala Other Backward Class List contains reference to as many as six names of different communities while under Serial No.48 of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes List only four names are given. Therefore, the State Committee should have approached the issue with specific reference to the community to which the petitioner claims to belong to. On the other hand, the State Committee had approached the issue as if the entire group of communities under Serial No.29 of the Kerala list are covered by Serial No.48 in Tamil Nadu Backward List. Due regard must also be had to the mentioning of Kaniyan in Serial No.8 of the Tamil Nadu List of Scheduled Tribe. On the other hand, the State Committee had approached the issue as if the entire group of communities under Serial No.29 of the Kerala list are covered by Serial No.48 in Tamil Nadu Backward List. Due regard must also be had to the mentioning of Kaniyan in Serial No.8 of the Tamil Nadu List of Scheduled Tribe. The State Committee has not dealt with the matter in a definite and specific manner with reference to the claims of the petitioner and instead had adopted a strait jacket formula of equating serial No.29 in the list of OBC in Kerala State with Serial No.48 of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes List. The approach of the Anthropologist Member, which is different as stated earlier, appears to be proper viz., to see whether the claims of the petitioner satisfy the basic requirements or characteristics of the Kaniyan Tribal Community. He has, of course, not approved the claims of the petitioner on the ground that he was not able to trace his relationship to any of his relatives belonging to Kaniyan Community. 13. Apart from the ground as mentioned above, the State Committee has to consider the issue in the light of two certificates which were furnished by him, but were not duly considered by the State Committee, viz., that of Sureshkumar and Bindhu. They have been certified as Hindu Kaniyans and as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claims that they are his relatives. In this context, the petitioner has produced the acknowledgment card dated 19.5.2003 of having sent them to the State Committee and the xerox copy of the certificates issued in favour of the said individuals, who are claimed to be his relatives. But, there is no reference to the said certificates in the order of the State Committee. The certificates would be relevant also in the context of the report of the Anthropologist Member and his observation that the petitioner has not produced any material to show his relationship with any one belonging to Kaniyan Tribal Community. 14. The State Committee has also not properly appreciated the purpose for which reference has been made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Duth Nath Prasad reported in 2000 (1) CTC 418. 14. The State Committee has also not properly appreciated the purpose for which reference has been made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Duth Nath Prasad reported in 2000 (1) CTC 418. The petitioner has apparently referred to the judgment only in the context of the definition of the word 'ordinary resident' in order to satisfy his contention that he is a permanent resident in the State of Tamil Nadu. 15. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the State Committee with the following observations and to remit the same for reconsideration in accordance with law: (1) The State Committee should independently consider the claims of the petitioner without merely be guided by the Kerala list of OBC and to find out on the basis of the materials produced by the petitioner as to whether he would fall under Serial No.48 of the Backward Classes list or under Serial No.8 of Scheduled Tribe list. (2) Due regard shall be had to the certificates issued in favour of A.Bindhu and B.Sureshkumar and an opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioner to prove the same as well as whether they are related to him and as regards his other claims. (3) The State Committee shall pass orders within a period of two months after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed with the above terms. No costs. K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J. After the delivery of the order, learned senior counsel brings to the notice of the Court that in W.P.No.23253 of 2004, the petitioner had prayed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to the I year M.B.B.S. Course 2004-05, after conducting counselling. 2. R.Balasubramanian,J., has passed the following order dated 12.8.2004, while disposing of the said writ petition: "Admit. Mr.A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the respondents/State. With the consent of the learned Senior Counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petitioner attended the first counselling held on 27.6.2004 for medical admission. He is coming under Schedule Tribe quota, for which community 13 seats have been reserved. The petitioner is holding rank No.3 among that community quota. With the consent of the learned Senior Counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petitioner attended the first counselling held on 27.6.2004 for medical admission. He is coming under Schedule Tribe quota, for which community 13 seats have been reserved. The petitioner is holding rank No.3 among that community quota. It is needless to state that since the petitioner claims admission under the specific community quota he is bound to produce the community certificate in support of such a claim. For that he was given time. The petitioner thereafter had sent a letter to the second respondent informing that they moved this court in W.P.No.7104/2004 for getting the necessary community certificate and therefore wanted the undertaking already given by him to be extended for a further period. It is not in dispute that a learned Judge of this court heard the writ petition and reserved orders. Orders are yet to be pronounced. In the meantime the petitioner had attended the second counselling for the medical admission on 10.8.2004 under the very same reserved quota namely, Schedule Tribe quota and his rank as rank No.3 stands reiterated in the counselling as well. But however till date the petitioner is not in a position to produce the community certificate, since the learned Judge of this court, who heard the writ petition, is yet to pass orders. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that as counselling is still going on, classes are likely to be commenced only in the month of September, 2004. Learned Additional Advocate General would also state that till the disposal of the writ petition referred to above, the respondents would not cancel the admission already granted to the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the above facts, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as hereunder:- "The respondents are directed not to cancel the admission of the petitioner to the medical course and the allotment of a seat to him in Kilpauk Medical College till the learned Judge of this court pronounces judgment in W.P.No.7104/2004. Any time fixed for payment of fee would also stand extended till the disposal of the writ petition as indicated above." Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P is also closed. No costs. " 3. Any time fixed for payment of fee would also stand extended till the disposal of the writ petition as indicated above." Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P is also closed. No costs. " 3. Learned senior counsel prays that with the passing of the order in this W.P.No.7104 of 2004, the admission is likely to be cancelled. 4. It is made clear that till the State Level Committee passes final orders, in view of the order in W.P.No.23253 of 2004, the same directions will continue to operate, namely, the respondents shall not cancel the admission already granted to the petitioner.