Judgment P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Elango, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. .2. The petitioner entered into service as a reserved category belonging to Scheduled Tribe. While he was in service, a doubt arose regarding his community status and the matter was decided on 29. 2000 by a two member District Level Committee, which found that the certificate was incorrect and accordingly cancelled the certificate. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the State Level Committee consisting of three members by an order dated 3. 2002. In the meantime while all these controversies were going on, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and had retired with effect from 22. 1997. After the dismissal of the appeal by the State Level Committee, a charge memo was issued by the Government for the purpose of considering as to whether pension should be withheld or not on the allegation that the petitioner had entered into service on the basis of a false certificate regarding his community status. 3. The petitioner filed Original Application No.1101 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging such charge memo. The said case having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.20838 of 2003. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.2542 of 2003 challenging the cancellation of the community certificate by the District Level committee and confirmed by the State Level Committee. 4. So far as the writ petition (W.P.No.2542 of 2003) challenging order passed by the District Level Committee and the State Level Committee is concerned, the matter is no longer res integra. In Maduri Patel vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in 1995 Supreme Court 94, the Supreme Court had laid down the Law as well as the procedure relating to consideration of the question of validity of a certificate relating to a person claiming to be Scheduled Tribe and had directed for establishment of a three member committee to enquire into such matters. 5. In the present case, the community certificate was cancelled by the District Level Committee consisting of two members whereas the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court categorically contemplated that such Committee to consider the question of validity of otherwise of the community certificate of a person allegedly belonging to Schedule Tribe should consist of three members. 5. In the present case, the community certificate was cancelled by the District Level Committee consisting of two members whereas the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court categorically contemplated that such Committee to consider the question of validity of otherwise of the community certificate of a person allegedly belonging to Schedule Tribe should consist of three members. It is no doubt true that such order of the two member District level committee was subsequently affirmed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee consisting of three members, which had been apparently given the power of hearing the appeals against such orders passed by the District Level Committee. .6. There was divergences of opinions in the Madras High Court as to whether the order passed by the District Level Committee cancelling the community certificate of a person can be considered to be legal, if it is ultimately affirmed by the State Level Committee. One line of decision laid down that since the decision of the two Member District Level Committee was void as being contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, there was a parallel line of thinking to the effect that since the State Level Committee consisting of three members had confirmed such order of District Level Committee in Maduri Patels case , such order could be considered as valid and the cancellation of the community certificate could be upheld. .7. Ultimately in a very recent decision reported in 2008(1) MLJ 125 Sc (G.M., Indian Bank V. R. Rani),the Supreme Court has apparently approved of the first line of thinking and has upheld one such decision by observing as follows:- ."8. So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of the view that as the constitution of the District Level Committee was in infarction of law laid down by this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl.Commr.Tribal Development, Thane and others (supra), the defect could not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to State Level Committee. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified in quashing the order passed by the District Level Committee, State Level Committee and the orders of termination." 8. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified in quashing the order passed by the District Level Committee, State Level Committee and the orders of termination." 8. In view of such authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that the cancellation of the community certificate by the two Member Committee was of no avail and confirmed in appeal. 9. It is not in dispute that in the meantime the State Government has constituted an appropriate three Member Committee to go into the question of validity or otherwise of the community certificate of a person allegedly belonging to Scheduled Tribe. This has been done vide G.O.(2D).No.108 dated 12th September, 2007. Since the cancellation of the community certificate is now found to be invalid and yet the dispute relating to the community status is persisting, obviously the matter is now required to be decided by an appropriate committee as constituted G.O.(2D).No.108 dated 12th September, 2007. .10. Thus, while setting aside the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, cancelling the community certificate issued in respect of the petitioner, we direct that such matter relating to validity of the community certificate shall be decided by the appropriate committee. Since the matter is very old, the said Committee is expected to resolve the question as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the Committee shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing including liberty of personal hearing to the petitioner before taking any decision. It is also made clear that any observation made in the earlier round of proceedings before the District Level Committee or the State Level Committee or in the present order should not be construed as expressing any opinion in the matter and the said matter has to be decided in accordance with law on the basis of materials to be produced before the Committee. In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, we direct the petitioner to appear before the State Level Committee on 8. 2008 without waiting for any further notice from the said Committee. On the said date, the Committee shall fix an appropriate date for holding enquiry thereafter. 11. In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, we direct the petitioner to appear before the State Level Committee on 8. 2008 without waiting for any further notice from the said Committee. On the said date, the Committee shall fix an appropriate date for holding enquiry thereafter. 11. So far as W.P.No.20837 of 2003 is concerned, now that the question of community status has to be decided afresh, obviously,the conclusion already rendered cannot hold good and such matter has to depend upon the result of the enquiry to be conducted by the State Level Committee. Therefore while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, we observe that such charge memo would be considered in accordance with law after the matter is finalised by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 12. Accordingly W.P.Nos.2542 of 2003 and 20837 of 2003 are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.