Judgment :- This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the third respondent dated 12. 1999, whereby the admission of the petitioner in the B.V.Sc. Degree course for the academic year 1991-1992 was cancelled. 2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is as under: (a) The petitioner hails from a poor agricultural family in a remote village called Lakshmipuram in the District of Madurai, and presently in Theni District. The petitioner has undergone his school education with considerable difficulty and he wrote the Plus-Two examination twice, in 1990 as well as in 1991, for the purpose of improving his marks and to get admission to B.V.Sc. Degree course. In the meantime, the third respondent issued a notification for admission to Undergraduate Degree Programmes for the year 1991-1992 and as per the said notification, the petitioner submitted an application for admission to B.V.Sc. Degree course under the Farmers Quota. The petitioner was directed to remit the fees as well as to produce the original certificates and on compliance of those directions, he was given admission and he also joined the course for the academic year 1991-1992. The petitioner successfully completed B.V.Sc. Degree course in the year 1997 by securing First Class. (b) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the third respondent dated 29. 1997, wherein it was stated that he got admission to B.V.Sc. Degree course against the seat reserved for the Sons/Daughters of Farmers under Schedule Caste Quota during the academic year 1991-1992 and subsequently, the District Adi-Dravida Welfare Officer, Theni has informed that based on the petition received by him, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam and in such enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Vadugan caste, which was recognized only as a Backward Class community and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits available to the Scheduled Caste candidates. Accordingly, he was directed to show cause as to why his admission in B.V.Sc. course should not be cancelled. (c) Immediately, the petitioner met the third respondent in person and apprised him of the fact that he was given admission to the B.V.Sc. Degree course only under Farmers Quota and not under the Schedule Caste Quota and as such, there was no basis for the proposed cancellation of the admission. course should not be cancelled. (c) Immediately, the petitioner met the third respondent in person and apprised him of the fact that he was given admission to the B.V.Sc. Degree course only under Farmers Quota and not under the Schedule Caste Quota and as such, there was no basis for the proposed cancellation of the admission. The petitioner also explained to the third respondent that he was not aware of any enquiry about his community status and requested the third respondent to furnish copies of the discreet enquiry report and other proceedings stated to have been received by the third respondent, on the basis of which the show cause notice has been issued to him. (d) However, the third respondent failed to furnish such documents to the petitioner and ultimately, passed the impugned order dated 12. 1999 cancelling the B.V.Sc. Degree admission of the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to repay the amount of Rs.26,111/-, which was received towards scholarship, fee concession and internship allowance, etc. during his B.V.Sc. Degree studies. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 3. Mr. S. Chidambaranathan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was given admission only under Farmers Quota and the same was also indicated in the Admission Card issued by the third respondent as well as in other correspondence and as such, the third respondent was not justified in cancelling the admission, and that too after completion of the course in the year 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the scholarship as well as fee concession given to the petitioner amounting to Rs.26,111/-, which was found mentioned in the impugned order, has already been recovered by the third respondent by way of revenue recovery proceedings, but however the provisional certificate was not given to the petitioner and his other certificates are also with the third respondent. CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY: .4. Mr. S. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that admission was given to the petitioner against the seats reserved for the Sons/ Daughters of Farmers under Scheduled Caste and as such, the third respondent was justified in cancelling the admission on the basis of the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 5. 2000. .ANALYSIS: 5. Mr. S. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that admission was given to the petitioner against the seats reserved for the Sons/ Daughters of Farmers under Scheduled Caste and as such, the third respondent was justified in cancelling the admission on the basis of the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 5. 2000. .ANALYSIS: 5. The admission notification as well as the prospectus issued by the third respondent shows that separate reservation was provided to Backward Class, Most Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in respect of admission to B.V.Sc. Degree course. With respect to Scheduled Caste, 18% of the seats were reserved and 1% of the seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Similarly, Sons/Daughters of Farmers were given 20 seats. It is also found that seats were reserved for Tamilian Repatriates from Sri Lanka, Tamilian Repatriates from Burma, Students of External Colleges and Private Students of Indian Origin, Government of India nominee as prescribed by Government of Tamil Nadu, Livestock Inspectors of Animal Husbandry Department candidates of Tamil Nadu, Vocational Stream candidates and Tamil Speaking students of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, etc. .6. Further, it is also found from the prospectus that in order to claim admission under Farmers Quota, the petitioner has to enclose the certificates as found in the note appended to the prospectus. It was not mentioned in the said list that the candidate should submit a community certificate. In case the Farmers Quota was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, necessarily the candidates would have to submit the community certificate. However, the enclosures does not indicate the necessity to submit such certificate and the same is a pointer to show that the Farmers Quota was not the quota for Scheduled Caste and it was only for the Sons/Daughters of the Farmers. 7. It was the consistent case of the petitioner that he had applied only under the Farmers Quota and the intimation sent to the petitioner, as found enclosed in the typeset of papers, dated 19. 1991 shows that the petitioner was selected for B.V.Sc. Degree course under Farmers Quota and he was directed to remit the fees with original certificates before 29. 1991. The Admission Slip given by the third respondent dated 29. 1991 also shows that the petitioner was selected only under Farmers Quota. 1991 shows that the petitioner was selected for B.V.Sc. Degree course under Farmers Quota and he was directed to remit the fees with original certificates before 29. 1991. The Admission Slip given by the third respondent dated 29. 1991 also shows that the petitioner was selected only under Farmers Quota. Therefore, it is evident that the admission of the petitioner in the third respondent-University was only under the Farmers Quota. 8. However, very strangely, in the show cause notice issued by the third respondent dated 29. 1997, the admission of the petitioner was mentioned as under the seats reserved for Sons/Daughters of Farmers under Scheduled Caste for the academic year 1991-1992. However, the notification issued by the third respondent as well as the prospectus does not contain any such reservation for Sons/Daughters of Farmers under Scheduled Caste. There were separate reservations for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and for Farmers, and nothing like reservation for Sons/Daughters of Farmers under Scheduled Caste was found in the notification as well as in the prospectus issued by the third respondent. .9. The proceedings also show that the matter was subsequently taken up by the District Adi-Dravida Welfare Officer, Theni on the basis of a petition received by him, and necessary enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam and it was found that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Vadugan Caste, which is recognized as Backward Class community and as such, he was not a Scheduled Caste candidate. However, the said finding cannot be used to cancel the admission given to the petitioner as it was not under the Scheduled Caste quota and as such, the third respondent was not justified in cancelling the admission of the petitioner on the said ground. 10. It also appears that the petitioner has availed the scholarship as well as fee concession from the third respondent and such concession was available only to the students of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the third respondent has already recovered the scholarship as well as fee concession amount paid to the petitioner amounting to Rs.26,111/- and as such, the petitioner has no claim with respect to scholarship and fee concession. 11. The third respondent, under the pretext of acting on the basis of the report of the District Collector dated 5. 11. The third respondent, under the pretext of acting on the basis of the report of the District Collector dated 5. 2000, cancelled the very admission given to the petitioner, and that too after the petitioner has graduated in the year 1997. The third respondent was justified in directing the petitioner to refund the entire amount availed by him by way of scholarship as well as fee concession, but however, he was not justified in cancelling the admission given to the petitioner, on the basis of the enquiry report as well as the proceedings of the Collector dated 5. 2000. 12. The documents produced clearly show that the admission of the petitioner was not against Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Quota and it was given purely on the basis that he was entitled to reservation under Farmers Quota. It was not the case of the third respondent that the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of the Farmers Quota. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to support the order of the third respondent with respect to the cancellation of admission given to the petitioner. 13. Even with respect to those students who have falsely claimed the benefit of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, the Apex Court held that in cases where the students have already completed the course, the authorities were required to protect the degree so obtained by the respective students. In Additional General Manger/Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. S.R. Burde, reported in (2007 (7) SCALE 112), the Apex Court reiterated the legal position thus: "12. The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court is, that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person has got admission in a professional course like engineering or MBBS and has successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period and has passed the examination, his case may, on special facts, be considered on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires the necessary skill in the subjects, which he has studied. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires the necessary skill in the subjects, which he has studied. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. In such cases the professional degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by the student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the professional course, his admission would be liable to be cancelled. However, where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. In such cases only a limited relief of protection of his professional degree may be granted." 14. In the present case, the Intimation letter and the Admission Slip clearly shows that the petitioner was given admission only under the Farmers Quota and he also completed his studies in the year 1997 and passed in First Class. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the third respondent erred in cancelling the admission and as such, the impugned order dated 12. 1999 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12. 1999 is quashed only insofar as the decision to cancel the admission of the petitioner in B.V.Sc. Course. The third respondent is directed to issue the Provisional Certificate to the petitioner and to return the certificates produced by the petitioner during the time of his admission and such exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed subject to the above directions. No costs.