Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The petitioner, on the strength of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, North-West, Madras-7, on 28. 1971 certifying that he belongs to "Konda Kappu" Community, which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribe, secured an employment in the first respondent-Port Trust as Clerk. The second respondent-Collector by proceedings dated 14. 1985 certified that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is a genuine one. However, by proceedings dated 30.7.2004, the second respondent-Collector directed the petitioner to appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 8. 2004 at 11.00 a.m. for an enquiry to verify the bona fide of the certificate relied on by the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner gave his representation dated 8. 2004 sustaining that he belongs to "Konda Kappu" Community, a Scheduled Tribe. When the enquiry initiated by the State Level Scrutiny Committee is still continuing and no final order has been passed, the first respondent by proceedings dated 210. 2004 hastened to terminate the service of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 210. 2004 in Ref.G1/20259/03/S passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent not to disturb or dislodge the official position and employment of the petitioner as Senior Deputy Secretary in the Secretarys Department of the first respondent. 2. This Court, by order dated 210. 2004, while admitting the above writ petition, granted interim injunction and stay. On the strength of the interim order, the petitioner is still continuing his service in the first respondent. 3. According to Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 28. 1971 and the proceedings of the District Collector dated 14. 1985 holding that the community certificate relied on by the petitioner is genuine, are still in force and therefore, the petitioner cannot be terminated from service. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents and perused the materials available on record. 5. 1971 and the proceedings of the District Collector dated 14. 1985 holding that the community certificate relied on by the petitioner is genuine, are still in force and therefore, the petitioner cannot be terminated from service. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents and perused the materials available on record. 5. In the matter relating to verification and cancellation of the community certificate after due enquiry, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind ( 2001 (1) SCC 4 ) has held as follows: "In order to protect and promote the less fortunate or unfortunate people who have been suffering from social handicap, educational backwardness besides other disadvantages, certain provisions are made in the Constitution with a view to see that they also have the opportunity to be on par with the others in the society. Certain privileges and benefits are conferred on such people belonging to Scheduled Tribes by way of reservations in admission to educational institutions (professional colleges) and in appointments in services of State. The object behind these provisions is noble and laudable besides being vital in bringing a meaningful social change. But, unfortunately, even some better-placed persons by producing false certificates as belonging to Scheduled Tribes have been capturing or cornering seats or vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes defeating the very purpose for which the provisions are made in the Constitution. The Presidential Orders are issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution recognising and identifying the needy and deserving people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein for the constitutional purpose of availing benefits of reservation in the matters of admissions and employment. If these benefits are taken away by those for whom they are not meant, the people for whom they are really meant or intended will be deprived of the same and their sufferings will continue. Allowing the candidates not belonging to Scheduled Tribes to have the benefit or advantage of reservation either in admissions or appointments leads to making mockery of the very reservation against the mandate and the scheme of the Constitution." 6. Allowing the candidates not belonging to Scheduled Tribes to have the benefit or advantage of reservation either in admissions or appointments leads to making mockery of the very reservation against the mandate and the scheme of the Constitution." 6. In view of the above ratio, once an enquiry was initiated as to the verification of the community certificate relied upon by the petitioner, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribe Orders any further or for any other constitutional purpose, much less service benefits, unless and until the State Level Scrutiny Committee holds that the community certificate relied upon by the petitioner is genuine and bona fide. 7. In the instant case, it was projected before the learned Single Judge that the impugned enquiry was initiated by the District Collector, but not by the Committee. On the other hand, the fact remains that by proceedings dated 30.7.2004, the petitioner was required to appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee in the office of the Collector on 8. 2004 at 11.00 a.m. for an enquiry to verify the bona fide of the certificate relied on by the petitioner. Therefore, it may not be proper to hold that the District Collector himself proposed to hold an enquiry, which is undoubtedly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maduri Patils case, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 . Once we are satisfied that the enquiry was proposed to be held by the State Level Scrutiny Committee by proceedings dated 30.7.2004 only to verify the community certificate of the petitioner, suffice it to pass the following order in the facts and circumstances of the case: .(i) The impugned order dated 210. 2004 passed by the first respondent-Port Trust authority, pending enquiry into the correctness of the community certificate dated 28. 2004 passed by the first respondent-Port Trust authority, pending enquiry into the correctness of the community certificate dated 28. 1971, relied on by the petitioner, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside; .(ii) the State Level Scrutiny Committee is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry to verify the correctness and bona fide of the community certificate relied on by the petitioner, after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice, and pass appropriate orders on merits as expeditiously as possible; (iii) the continuation of the service of the petitioner under the first respondent-Port Trust shall be subject to the result in the enquiry by the Committee; .(iv) the petitioner cannot claim any further service benefit unless and until the State Level Scrutiny Committee holds that the community certificate of the petitioner is genuine and bona fide; and .(v) the petitioner is at liberty to stake his claim for any service benefits subject to the result in the enquiry of the Committee. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.