JUDGMENT :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional officer, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent herein, even dated 26.07.1999, in Pa.Mu.11707/95(A.4) and in Na.Ka.A4.6467/97 respectively, whereby the first respondent refused to issue the community certificates to the respective petitioners that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.No.14486 of 1999 and the petitioner in W.P.No.14487 of 1999 will be referred to as the first petitioner and second petitioner respectively. 1. Both the petitioners relied upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 respectively that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners were appointed as N.M.Rs. in the second respondent/management based on the above said community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri. However, the second respondent/management issued show cause notices to both the petitioners proposing to dismiss them from service on the ground that they do not belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community, a scheduled tribe, which necessitated the petitioners to approach the Civil Court by filing O.S.Nos.1909 of 1995 and O.S.No.1914 of 1995 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. The said suits were decreed ex-parte by orders even dated 6. 1996, with a direction to the defendants/revenue authorities to issue community certificates to the respective petitioners before 9. 1996. 2. As the aforesaid direction of the civil Court was not complied with, the first petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15355 of 1998, whereunder, this Court, by order dated 12. 1999, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent herein, to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner for issuance of community certificate, within a period of five months. Similarly, the second petitioner filed W.P.No.15357 of 1998, whereunder this Court by order dated 13. 1999 issued a similar direction. 3. Before the first respondent, both the petitioners relied upon the community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 24. 1972 and 4. 1978 respectively, as well as the decree of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy, in the respective suits, referred to earlier and also produced other documentary evidence. 1999 issued a similar direction. 3. Before the first respondent, both the petitioners relied upon the community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 24. 1972 and 4. 1978 respectively, as well as the decree of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy, in the respective suits, referred to earlier and also produced other documentary evidence. The first respondent herein, after hearing both sides, by the impugned proceedings, refused to give credential to the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioners and rejected the request to issue community certificates that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community, a scheduled tribe, on the basis of the discreet enquiry conducted by him personally at Thiruverumbur in respect of the first petitioner and at South Kattur in respect of the second petitioner and also on the basis of the report of the District Collector, Trichy, that they do not belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community. Hence, the present writ petitions by the petitioners. 1. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to our notice that in both the cases, the community certificates issued to the petitioners dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 respectively by the Tahsildar, Musiri, were not cancelled till date. 2. It is also contended that neither the District Collector, Trichy, nor the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein, issued any notice with regard to any enquiry at the native place of the petitioners about the genuineness of the community certificates produced by them and therefore, the enquiries of the District Collector as well as the first respondent herein held in the native place of the petitioners are nothing but discreet enquiries and hence, the findings thereupon cannot be acted upon against the petitioners by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned proceedings, as there is apparent violation of principle of natural justice for having not given opportunity to the petitioners in the discreet enquiry conducted by the District Collector. 3. 3. Finally, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even assuming that the revenue authorities are competent enough to scrutinize the genuineness of the community certificates issued to the petitioners, pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ], the same could be exercised by the District Level Vigilance Committee/State Level Scrutiny Committee and in the instant case, since the petitioners claim that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe, the genuineness of their community certificate can only be scrutinised by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 1. Mr. K. Elango, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, fairly submitted that even though the impugned orders came to be passed pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.Nos.15355 and 15357 of 1998 by orders dated 12. 1999 and 13. 1999 respectively to the first respondent to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners, the fact remains that in both the cases, the community certificates dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 issued to the respective petitioners were not cancelled till date by the revenue authorities concerned and in any event, pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court dated 9. 1994, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ] referred supra, the genuineness of the community certificates in the case of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes can be scrutinized only by the State Level Scrutiny Committee/District Level Vigilance Committee and neither the first respondent herein nor the District Collector has power to consider the representation of the petitioners either to grant or reject the request for issuance of community certificates that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe. 2. Mr. K. Ilango, learned Special Government Pleader, also brought to our notice the relevant G.Os. passed pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, referred supra with regard to the constitution of Committees and their functions thereupon in respect of scrutinisation of community certificates relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He also produced a copy of G.O.(2D).No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 19. 2007 as well as the latest G.O.(2D).No.3, dated 31. 2008. 6. Mr. He also produced a copy of G.O.(2D).No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 19. 2007 as well as the latest G.O.(2D).No.3, dated 31. 2008. 6. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/management, invited our attention to the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.20765 to 20767 of 1998 filed by the first petitioner herein, namely, P.Maragathamani, reported in 2006 (1) CTC 497 , wherein the Full Bench has held as follows:- "42. In these writ petitions, as indicated above, the main point relates to the maintainability of the suit and its binding nature on the authorities. Since we have held in the earlier paragraphs that the suit is not maintainable and, as such, it is not binding on the authorities, we cannot but say that the orders impugned would not suffer from any infirmity, especially in the light of the fact that the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs." (emphasis supplied) and contended that in view of the fact that the dismissal of the petitioners have already been confirmed by the above decision of the Full Bench, the question of scrutinisation of the community certificates issued to the petitioners need not be gone into again in the present writ petitions. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 1. At this juncture, it is apt to refer the procedures to be followed for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ], referred supra, which read thus:- 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post." 2. Pursuant to the above directions of the Apex Court, the Government has issued several G.Os. constituting committees for scrutinisation of community certificates in respect of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and also their functions. As per the Government Order dated 19. 2007, the Government has made certain modifications in the constitution of the District Level Vigilance Committee and the State Level Scrutiny Committee as well as their functions as detailed below:- Subsequently, by G.O.(2D).No.3, dated 31. 2008, the Government has amended para 3 of the earlier G.O. dated 19. 2007, which reads thus:- "The cases for verification of the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe Community Certificates referred to by the Head of Departments, District Collectors, Universities, Educational Institutions, Central/State Public Sector Undertakings and other recruiting agencies received by District Level Vigilance Committees upto the date of issue of this Government Order i.e. 12.09.2007 have to be dealt with by the respective District Level Vigilance Committee. Similarly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall pass orders on the appeal cases of both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe on which personal hearing have already been given before the date of issue of this Government Order i.e. 12.09.2007, but no orders were passed for want of certain particulars on the date of personal hearing." (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall pass orders on the appeal cases of both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe on which personal hearing have already been given before the date of issue of this Government Order i.e. 12.09.2007, but no orders were passed for want of certain particulars on the date of personal hearing." (emphasis supplied) 9. It is, thus clear from the above material facts that as per the executive instructions that govern the issue as on date, only the District Level Vigilance Committee is competent to scrutinise the genuineness of the community certificate issued in the case of Scheduled Tribe and the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall pass orders on the appeal cases in respect of both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe. In any event, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein, even in the year 1999 as well as till date has no jurisdiction to scrutinise the genuineness of the community certificates dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 already issued to the petitioners respectively by the Tahsildar, Musiri. 10. In our considered view, the issue whether the respective decretal orders passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy, in O.S.Nos.1909 and 1914 of 1995, even dated 6. 1996, which are, of course, ex-parte orders, are binding or not in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of the first petitioner herein, viz. 2006 (1) CTC 497 , referred supra, does not arise at all for the simple reason that de hors the exparte decretal orders of the civil Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the respective impugned proceedings even dated 27. 99 considered and rejected the request of the petitioners for issuance of community certificates on various other grounds. 11. We find some force in the submission of Mr. 99 considered and rejected the request of the petitioners for issuance of community certificates on various other grounds. 11. We find some force in the submission of Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, viz., that the findings arrived at by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein, in the discreet enquiry held at the native place of the petitioners that they do not belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, cannot be acted upon against the petitioners, for the simple reason that the petitioners, concededly, had not been given any opportunity of being heard before arriving at such findings by the District Collector and the first respondent herein, as the same is an apparent violation of principle of natural justice. 1. Secondly, in both the cases, the first respondent herein held an enquiry at the respective residential place of the petitioners, which again appears to be unilateral in nature. There is no reference to any notice to the petitioners to make their submission during the enquiry. 2. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Chandrasekharan [ AIR 1988 SC 1309 = [1988] 3 SCC 534], the conclusion arrived at by their Lordships is relevant which is extracted hereunder: "5. In our view, the Appeals can be disposed of on a short point. It is evident from the aforesaid order, G.O.Ms. No. 51, dated March 20, 1984 that in the course of the enquiry, the Commissioner of Welfare, Social Welfare Department, went into the social and economic status of Chandrasekharan, his parents and other members of his family and the question whether they were regarded as untouchables by the caste Hindus of the area. The Commissioner of Social Welfare examined exhaustly the question whether any disability or untouchability was suffered by Chadasekhara and members of his family and by others belonging to the Jangam community in the district concerned. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that Beda Jangamas properly called were hunters of small jungle animals, fowlers and also cultivators whereas Jangamas in the area concerned did not suffer from any social disability at all but were regarded as a part of the comparatively advanced classes. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that Beda Jangamas properly called were hunters of small jungle animals, fowlers and also cultivators whereas Jangamas in the area concerned did not suffer from any social disability at all but were regarded as a part of the comparatively advanced classes. What is material is that this order itself shows that the Enquiry Officer made enquiries from several persons and recorded their statements without any notice to Chandrasekharan so that he could remain present and ask for permission to cross-examine these witnesses. In view of this, it appears to us that the Commissioner clearly violated the terms of the enquiry which have already set out earlier to the effect that while conducting the proceedings of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer should give notice to Chandrasekharan and should record the statements of person in his presence. It may further be pointed out that the learned Counsel for the Central Government fairly conceded before the High Court that the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper, as set out in the impugned judgment. In this view of the matter there is no doubt that the aforesaid order, namely, G.O.Ms. No. 51, dated March 20, 1984 is clearly vitiated and the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was fully justified in setting aside the order." 3. In D. Illamaran v. Government of India (1996 WLR 482), K.A. Swami, Chief Justice, speaking for the Bench held thus: "Whenever such question arises as to whether a person belongs to a particular community recognised as the Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste, decision has to be taken by the Collector of the District, after holding due enquiry or in such case, he may himself hold an enquiry or direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. In the event the Collector adopts the latter course, he has to make available a copy of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the concerned person and give him an opportunity to file his objections and adduce evidence, if any and then decide the matter after hearing the aggrieved person, in the instant case the petitioner. This we have been reiterating in several cases and in spite of that the collectors are committing the same mistakes. This we have been reiterating in several cases and in spite of that the collectors are committing the same mistakes. In view of the fact that no opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioner to prove his case, it is necessary to issue, an, appropriate direction to the Collector as well as to respondents 1 and 2." 4. Again, in Siddi Raajan M. v. District Collector, Periyar District, Erode (1999-III-LLJ 823), a Division Bench of this Court, held as follows:- "We are not in a position to sustain the order passed by the Honble single Judge as the basic principles had been lost sight of and as such a view will run counter to the principles of natural justice besides violative of Article 14. Hence we hold that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and runs counter to the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court. There could be no discreet enquiry and no action could be taken by the respondents based upon the discreet enquiry with respect to the social status of the petitioner." (emphasis supplied) 5. That apart, in the case of C. Baskaran v. The District Collector, Trichy 1997 Writ L.R. 33, this Court has held that discreet enquiry itself is bad, even if it is held that the copies of the statements recorded and the copies of the documents collected during the course of discreet enquiry were furnished to the petitioner. It was further held that admittedly though discreet enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the copies of the statements recorded and the copies of the documents collected during the course of such enquiry were not made available to the petitioner and hence, the procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court. 6. Admittedly, in the case on hand, even though the Revenue Divisional Officer, had conducted a discreet enquiry at the respective native place of the petitioners, viz., at Thiruverumbur and at South Kattur respectively, there is no whisper in the impugned proceedings that notice was given to the petitioners before such enquiry nor copies of statements recorded and copies of documents collected were made available to the petitioners during the course of such enquiry. 16. Thirdly, even though the community certificates issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 27. 1972 and 4. 16. Thirdly, even though the community certificates issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 respectively were placed before the first respondent herein, there is no specific finding by the first respondent that the genuineness of the said community certificates were scrutinised and found in negative and therefore, the same were cancelled. 17. In any event, as rightly pointed out by Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and fairly submitted by Mr.K.Ilango, learned Special Government Pleader, after the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patils case [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ], referred supra, the first respondent ought not to have exercised the power even to scrutinise the genuineness of community certificates issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 respectively, since it was only the District Level Vigilance Committee, as it then was, in the year 1999, which was competent to do so as per G.O.(2D) No.108, dated 19. 2007 and as amended by G.O. (2D) No.3 dated 31. 2008. 18. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced that the impugned orders of the first respondent even dated 27. 1999 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order:- (i) The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the genuineness of the community certificates issued to the petitioners dated 27. 1972 and 4. 1978 whether they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community; (ii) The Committee shall pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as the matters are pending for decades together and for one another reason that not only the right of the petitioners is involved since they already reached the age of superannuation, but also to that of their children to avail the benefits conferred on them constitutionally in the field of education as well as employment. (iii) The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall do the above exercise after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to both the petitioners and shall strictly adhere to the time limit prescribed above and report compliance of the same to this Court after twelve weeks. (iv) The Writ Petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs.