Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. The appellant is seeking to challenge the order of the learned single Judge dated 012. 2006 made in W.P.No.720 of 2001. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruthani, dated 111. 2000 wherein he has held that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community and, therefore, he refused to grant any certificate in his favour. 3. The learned Judge, after passing an elaborate order, declined to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and also refused to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. The learned Judge held that only if a valid community certificate has been issued, the genuineness of the same could be verified by the District Level Committee whereas in the case of the appellant, there is no genuine certificate and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. 4. We have heard Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajakallifullah, learned Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the ancestors of the appellant belonged to Konthalakulam community, which is a colloquial term for Konda Reddy and in respect of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (2) CTC 244 [K.M. Parthasarathy vs. Revenue Divisional Officer] wherein this Court has held that the term Konthalakulam is synonymous to the term Konda Reddy. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents that they have decided to file a Special Leave Petition against the order made in W.A.No.85 of 1994. 6. In any event, in the present case, the appellant has been denied the Community Certificate on the basis of the materials produced by him and this is the second round the appellant had before the first respondent. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent and the learned Judge has also correctly dismissed the writ petition. 7. With reference to the contention that whether the term "Konthalakulam" is equivalent to Konda Reddy, we are afraid that such an exercise can never be made by this Court and strictly this Court is bound by the list of communities mentioned in the Presidential order listing out various names of communities. 8. 7. With reference to the contention that whether the term "Konthalakulam" is equivalent to Konda Reddy, we are afraid that such an exercise can never be made by this Court and strictly this Court is bound by the list of communities mentioned in the Presidential order listing out various names of communities. 8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5379 [Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. Union Public Service Commission and others] and paragraph 16 of the said judgment is usefully extracted below: "Para 16: There is no dispute on the proposition that if the Presidential Notification does not contain any specific class or tribe or a part of, then it is for the Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule and include in and exclude from the Schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for the State. The Courts must read the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 366 (24) and (25) as they find them and accept their ordinary meaning. Neither the Government nor the judiciary can add or subtract to the List of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But, the Court would have the limited jurisdiction to the extent of finding out whether the Community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned. To that limited extent, the court would have the jurisdiction but, otherwise, the court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such castes or tribes." 9. In the light of the above, the writ appeal fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the same, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 will also stand dismissed.