Judgment :- P. Jyothimani, J. The petitioner in W.P.No.4354 and 21212 of 2007 is one and the same person. The petitioner in the said writ petitions is the sister of the petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007. While W.P.Nos.4354 and 4353 of 2007 are filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tuticorin, dated 13.04.2007, under which the certificates issued to them as belonging to Kattu Naicken community were cancelled, W.P.No.21212 of 2007 is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4354 of 2007, challenging the order of her employer/State Bank of India dated 24.04.2007, under which the petitioners services in the Bank were terminated on the basis of cancellation of community certificate by the District Level Vigilance Committee. .2. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to Kattu Naicken community, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe and the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007 was selected and appointed as Clerk in the State Bank of India on 09.05.1983 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. She produced the community certificate dated 19.01.1983 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, which was given after due enquiry and her services were confirmed within a period of six months from the date of her initial appointment and at present, she is working in the Commercial Branch, Chennai under the control of the respondent. According to the petitioners, the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tuticorin had directed her sister K.Ganga Rani to appear for an enquiry with regard to her community status and she also appeared on 23.03.2007 before the District Level Vigilance Committee and submitted various documents to show that she belong to Kattu Naicken community. It is also stated that she submitted the community certificate of the petitioner in WP.4353 of 2007 K.Vanaja, who is her sister, apart from the community certificate of the petitioner. 3. The said Vanaja, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 has challenged the same proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee dated 13.04.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.111 Adi Dravidar Welfare (ADW-10) Department dated 06.07.2005. She has produced the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin dated 21.03.1979 and she was selected and appointed as Clerk in State Bank of India on 09.05.1983 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe and her services were confirmed within six months from her date of initial appointment and at present she is working in ADB Branch, Tirunelveli. She has produced the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin dated 21.03.1979 and she was selected and appointed as Clerk in State Bank of India on 09.05.1983 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe and her services were confirmed within six months from her date of initial appointment and at present she is working in ADB Branch, Tirunelveli. The petitioner also states that her sister Ganga Rani was directed to appear for enquiry by the second respondent Committee on 23.03.2007 and she has also produced various documents to show that she belongs to Kattu Naicken community and she also produced the community certificate of the petitioner as well as Vijayalakshmi, who is the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007. .4. At this point of time it is relevant to note, when the District Collector has passed an order cancelling the community certificate in respect of K.Ganga Rani, the said order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.13085 of 1998 on 112. 1999 with liberty to the respondents to take further action if necessary. Thereafter, when, again, the District Collector, District Level Vigilance Committee, Tuticorin by order dated 25.05.2000 has cancelled the community certificates issued to the said K.Ganga Rani as well as K.Vanaja, petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 and K.Vijayalakshmi, petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007, they have filed W.P.No.9064, 9065 and 9066 of 2000 respectively and this Court by order dated 05.09.2000, held that there is nothing on evidence to show that the District Collector has passed an order on behalf of District Level Vigilance Committee, and hence set aside the order with direction to the District Level Vigilance Committee to verify the certificates. It is also seen that in a writ petition filed by the said K.Ganga Rani in W.P.No.27210 of 2003, challenging the order of the District Collector and Chairman, District Level Vigilance Committee, cancelling the community certificate, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 01.08.2005 set aside the said order, however, with direction that if the District Level Vigilance Committee constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 06.07.2005, is addressed to verify the writ petitioners community status, then the Committee shall go into it and dispose of the proceedings in the manner known to law after providing reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner, in any event, within three months from the date of commencement of the proceedings. It was based on the said directions of the Division Bench in W.P.No.27210 of 2003 as well as the single Judge in the above said writ petitions the matter was referred to the second respondent, District Level Vigilance Committee to consider the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the said K.Ganga Rani. It is during the course of the said enquiry, she has also produced certificates pertaining to the writ petitioners. It is seen from the impugned order passed by the second respondent District Level Vigilance Committee, that the community certificates issued by the Tahsildar dated 21.03.1979 in respect of K.Vanaja, the petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 and in respect of K.Vijayalakshmi, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007 are set aside. .5. In respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007, K.Vanaja, as it is seen from the impugned order, even though the second respondent Committee was considering the case of K.Ganga Rani, at her instance, the Committee has also considered the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin dated 21.03.1979 and after analysis of the entire documents, has held that there was no record to prove that the petitioners K.Ganga Rani and K.Vanaja have proved with acceptable documents that they belong to Kattu Naicken community. In these circumstances, the contention raised by Mr.M.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 that the appeal would lie to the State Level Committee is not sustainable. This has been confirmed by various judgments of this Court holding that in respect of the certificates issued by the Tahsildar before 111. 1989, the District Level Vigilance Committee is competent and its decision is final and there is no further appeal, as it was held in W.P.(MD)No.4352 of 2007 dated 29.08.2007 and confirmed in the subsequent Division Bench order dated 110. 2007 in W.A.No.902 of 2007 and W.P.No.26562 of 2007. Even as per G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 06.07.2005, the District Level Vigilance Committee is competent to decide about the validity or otherwise of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar before the cut-off date 111. 1989, it is only after that date the authority competent to issue the community certificate in respect of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes is Revenue Divisional Officer. Against such certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the authority which is competent to decide is the State Level Vigilance Committee. Therefore, WP.No.4353 of 2007 is dismissed. 1989, it is only after that date the authority competent to issue the community certificate in respect of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes is Revenue Divisional Officer. Against such certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the authority which is competent to decide is the State Level Vigilance Committee. Therefore, WP.No.4353 of 2007 is dismissed. 6. It is relevant to point out that the second respondent District Level Vigilance Committee has in fact considered various documents elaborately and individually and found that in respect of K.Vanaja, petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 and K.Vijayalakshmi, petitioner in W.P.No.4354 and 21212 of 2007, in their transfer certificates given in the College, the community has been stated as Hindu Gowrah, which is a Backward Community and not a Scheduled Tribe. The Committee has also found that in respect of these three sisters, there are two contradictory certificates issued by School and College authorities, one stating Hindu Kattu Naicken community and another stating Hindu Gowrah. The second respondent has also considered various certificates produced by K.Ganga Rani, relating to their relatives and rejected the same. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the second respondent. .7. In respect of W.P.Nos.4354 of 2007 as well as 21212 of 2007, a reference to the impugned order of the second respondent shows that the temporary community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to K.Vijayalakshmi dated 19.01.1983 is set aside by the District Level Vigilance Committee. However, learned Government Pleader, Mr.Rajakalifulla, has produced a certificate dated 20.07.1982 issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul in favour of the petitioner Vijayalakshmi, which contains an endorsement by the Village Administrative Officer, Kuvanathu Village, Dindigul dated 19.07.1982 and according to him, it was that certificate which was produced before the District Level Vigilance Committee and submitted that the second respondent is competent authority to decide the same. On the other hand, a reference to the impugned order of the second respondent clearly shows that in respect of K.Vijayalakshmi, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007, the temporary community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.01.1983 stood set aside. However, as per the judgements referred to above, in respect of the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is the State Level Vigilance Committee, which alone has the competency to consider the same. 8. However, as per the judgements referred to above, in respect of the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is the State Level Vigilance Committee, which alone has the competency to consider the same. 8. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader Mr.Rajakalifulla that even though the second respondent District Level Vigilance Committee has set aside the temporary community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner has produced only the certificate issued by the Tahsildar which was in fact considered by the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned order. However, a reading of the order shows that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar was not considered and in any event, the certificate of the Tahsildar was taken note of by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued the temporary certificate. Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, by virtue of G.O.2D.No.108 dated 12.09.2007, it is made clear that in respect of verification and genuineness of community certificates issued, it is only the State Level Scrutiny Committee which alone is competent to decide the same, whether the certificate was issued by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer and finding of the State Level Committee is final which can only be questioned before this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .9. In view of the same, W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007, stand allowed. The order of the second respondent District Level Vigilance Committee dated 13.04.2007, cancelling the community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.01.1983 in so far as it relates to the petitioner K.Vijayalakshmi is set aside and the consequently the impugned order of the respondent/bank in terminating the services of the petitioner K.Vijayalakshmi is set aside with direction to the first respondent to refer the said certificate of the petitioner K.Vijayalakshmi issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.01.1983 to the State Level Scrutiny Committee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and on receipt of the same, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, by giving opportunity to the petitioner and by conducting enquiry, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is made clear that on the basis of the orders passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, it is open to the respondent in W.P.No.21212 of 2007 to take appropriate action against the petitioner Vijayalakshmi in accordance with law. 10. Regarding reinstatement of the petitioner in service, Mr.P.D.Adikesavalu, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India would submit that in similar cases the Supreme Court has granted interim stay of reinstatement, subject to the condition that if the freshly constituted Committee holds in favour of the employee, regardless of any writ petition or appeal being filed, the employee shall be reinstated in service forthwith and not later than 15 days from the date of order of the Committee. In view of the same, the plea of the petitioner for reinstatement cannot be considered now and that will be decided immediately after the orders of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 11. In the result, .(i) W.P.No.4353 of 2007, is dismissed; .(ii) W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007 are allowed with direction to the first respondent in W.P.No.4354 of 2007 to refer the community certificate of the petitioner K.Vijayalakshmi, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.01.1983 to the State Level Scrutiny committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall conduct enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter; (iii) On the basis of the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, it is open to the respondent in W.P.No.21212 of 2007, to take appropriate action against the petitioner in the manner known to law; .(iv) However, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to reinstatement, since it is the case of the employer Bank that the petitioner has been terminated from service and the question of reinstatement and payment of salary during interregnum period shall be decided after the State Level Committee disposes the matter, as stated above; and .(v) No costs. .(vi) Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.