Judgment D. Murugesan, J. The father of the petitioner, by name, Arumugam of Perundurai Town and Taluk, Erode District had made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Erode District, for issuance of Community Certificate in favour of his son A.Thangapandian, who is the petitioner herein, certifying himself belonging to Mudugar Community, which is notified to be a Scheduled Tribe Community. Accordingly,a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Gangeyam who in turn forwarded his report dated 11.06.1997 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram. In the report, it was stated that on enquiry, it came to light that none of the person living in Kolathupalayam Village, Dharapuram belong to Mudugar Community. On considering the above said report of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer by impugned order dated 08.07.1997 refused for issuance of community certificate to the petitioner and consequently rejected the application. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it could be seen that the father of the petitioner had produced as many as 14 documents at the time of enquiry. The details of the documents are furnished here below for reference:- 1. S.S.L.C. Book dated 16.07.1968 pertaining to his father, wherein his father is shown belonging to Mudugar Community 2. School Transfer Certificate of his father, wherein also his father is shown belonging to Mudugar Community 3. School Transfer Certificate of the petitioner herein 4. Ancient document viz., 2-C Patta of the year 1924 issue much prior to the independence, in favour of Thirumalaimudugar, the paternal grand father of the petitioner .5. 2-C Tax Receipt dated 19.04.1986, issued in favour of Muthusamy Mudugar, the .cousin brothers son of the paternal grand father of the petitioner certifying that he belongs to Mudugar Community 6. Extract from the Service Register of the father of the petitioner wherein also, the father of the petitioner is shown belonging to Mudugar Community 7. Community Certificate dated 03.07.1989 issued infavour of Selvi.P.Kalavathi 8. Community Certificate dated 10.07.1989 issued infavour of M.Thirumalaisamy 9. Community Certificate dated 24.08.1984 issued infavour of M.Chandrasekaran 10. Community Certificate dated 03.07.1989 issued infavour of P.Balathandapani 11. Community Certificate dated 29.07.1991 issued infavour of D.Kokilamani* 12. Community Certificate dated 29.07.1991 issued infavour of D.Vadivelan* .13. Community Certificate dated 22.08.1994 issue infavour of P.Lalitha* .*the names mentioned under the Sl.Nos.11 to 13 are cousin brothers children of the father of the petitioner. Community Certificate dated 03.07.1989 issued infavour of P.Balathandapani 11. Community Certificate dated 29.07.1991 issued infavour of D.Kokilamani* 12. Community Certificate dated 29.07.1991 issued infavour of D.Vadivelan* .13. Community Certificate dated 22.08.1994 issue infavour of P.Lalitha* .*the names mentioned under the Sl.Nos.11 to 13 are cousin brothers children of the father of the petitioner. 14. School Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School Elugamvalasu in favour of P. Balakrishnan .3. The first document viz., Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C.) dated 16.07.1968 relates to the father of the petitioner, which was issued by the District Educational Officer, Erode certifying that the father of the petitioner belonging to Mudugar Community. The second document viz., School Transfer Certificate dated 12.06.1968 also refers that the father of the petitioner belonged to Mudugar Community. The fourth document is an ancient document viz., 2(C) Patta issued in favour of G. Thirumalai Mudugar, the paternal grand father. The said document was issued in the year 1924 referring that the said Thirumalai is a person belonging to Mudugar Community. The sixth document, viz., extract from the Service Register of the petitioners father by name Arumugam, who was employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, would portray that he belongs to Mudugar community. Despite production of all those documents before the Revenue Divisional Officer, none of the same was referred to in the impugned order displaying a total disregard to those documents. Further, in the impugned order, it is stated that the S.S.L.C. Book, School Transfer Certificate and Extract from the Service Register of the father of the petitioner are not proper documents to prove that the petitioner belonging to Mudugar Community, which is notified as Schedule Tribe Community. 14. We have heard Mr. R. Manikandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel representing on behalf of the first respondent and Ms. D. Geetha, Standing Counsel for the second respondent. .5. We have considered the submissions of the respective counsel. In our opinion, the impugned order suffers from infirmity on the face of it and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. In matters of issue community certificate, of course, the competent authority is entitled to make a local verification to satisfy himself, as to whether the applicant belongs to a particular community or not. However, that cannot be the only test to find out the genuineness of the claim. In matters of issue community certificate, of course, the competent authority is entitled to make a local verification to satisfy himself, as to whether the applicant belongs to a particular community or not. However, that cannot be the only test to find out the genuineness of the claim. In the event, a claim is made on the basis of the fact that the applicants father was issued with a community certificate certifying himself belonging to Schedule Tribe Community and that when the certificate is not assailed in the manner known to law, such document would be a valid document for the concerned authority to rely upon and issue a community certificate. Equally, the ancient documents that too three documents, which came into existence much prior to the independence of India, could be considered to be the genuine documents and if those documents refer the community of the individual concerning, it would certainly be the valid piece of evidence for issuance of community certificate. On the facts, there is no dispute that the petitioner has produced S.S.L.C. Book, School Transfer Certificate and Extract from the Service Register belonging to his father, which came into existence during the year 1968 itself. We do not find any reason, as to why those documents have been discarded and rejected, while the application for issuance of community certificate was considered. Moreover, the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has not even cared to refer to those documents showing his bent of mind in not issuing the community certificate. The question as to whether the service records, S.S.L.C. Book and School Transfer Certificate of the father of the petitioner and the connected records could be the basis for issuance of community certificate was in fact considered by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and others V. Sumit Anand (2005(12) Supreme Court Cases 248) and the Apex Court was not inclined to interfere with order of the High Court directing the authority for issuance of community certificate on the basis of such documents. 16. 16. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and as there is no dispute as to the documents, which were produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer at the time of enquiry, evidencing the community of the father of the petitioner as Mudugar Community coupled with the ancient document of the year 1924, we are of the considered view, that it is a fit case, where a positive direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer can be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to issue the community certificate to the petitioner certifying himself belonging to Mudugar Community. 17. Insofar as the other relief viz., seeking a direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue his studies, it is represented that the petitioner had already discontinued the Course and therefore considering subsequent development, such a relief cannot be granted. Accordingly, the relief seeking a direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue his Course is rejected. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost.