Judgment : Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05. 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 953 of 2006. The relief sought for by the applicant before the Tribunal was to declare that the action of the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway in insisting for community certificate in the prescribed format from the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal or in the alternative to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to issue community certificate to him in the prescribed format to the effect that he belongs to Kattunayakan community and that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe based on the permanent community certificate dated 212. 1998 issued by the Assistant Collector, Dharmapuri and consequently, to direct the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway to appoint him as Section Engineer / Works. 2. The case of the applicant, who is a B.E. Degree holder in Civil Engineering and who belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of Section Engineer / Works and Section Engineer / P.Way, he applied for the same and he came out successful in the selection process, viz., written examination and interview, and he was selected for the post of Section Engineer / Works. It is further stated that when he submitted the certificates including Community Certificate obtained from the Tahsildar for verification, the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway insisted for a certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The grievance of the applicant before the Tribunal was that the Revenue Divisional Officer declined to issue community certificate stating that when permanent community certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, there is no question of issuing another community certificate in the format prescribed by the Railways and the Chief Personnel officer, Southern Railway is not willing to accept the same and on the contrary, he is insisting for certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Apprehending that there are chances for cancellation of his selection in the event of non-production of the certificate as required, the applicant approached the Tribunal with the above O.A. 3. Apprehending that there are chances for cancellation of his selection in the event of non-production of the certificate as required, the applicant approached the Tribunal with the above O.A. 3. The Railway Board filed a reply statement before the Tribunal stating that as per the Memorandum dated 23.02.1995 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, which stipulates certain conditions, as far as the Scheduled Tribe community of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the community certificate given by the Revenue Divisional Officer should only be accepted for the purpose of employment under the Government of India and on that basis, they sent call letters to the selected candidates to appear with documents in original including community certificate and a copy of the format of community certificate was also enclosed in the call letter. The further contention of the Railway Board is that the applicant instead of producing the community certificate from Revenue Divisional Officer, has approached the Tribunal seeking for the direction to accept the Community Certificate dated 212. 1998 issued by the Assistant Collector, Dharmapuri, and prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 4. Based on the above said pleadings, the parties were before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed on record, allowed the O.A. with direction to the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, to accept the community certificate dated 212. 1998 issued by the Assistant Collector and appoint him to the post of Section Engineer / Works. Aggrieved by the said order, the Railway Recruitment Board has filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioners and perused the materials placed before us. 6. At the time of admission of the writ petition, interim stay was granted by order dated 25. 2007 staying the order of the Tribunal dated 05. 2007 passed in O.A. No. 953 of 2006 and it was subsequently allowed to continue by order dated 26. 2007 with further direction to the petitioners to keep one post vacant. When a petition for vacating the stay was filed at the instance of the second respondent, a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 07. 2007, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner, on his filing an application, in the prescribed format. 7. When a petition for vacating the stay was filed at the instance of the second respondent, a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 07. 2007, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner, on his filing an application, in the prescribed format. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, vide G.O. Ms. No. 2137 dated 111. 1989 has ordered that the community certificate in respect of all communities included in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of appointment in Public Services under Central and State Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Quasi Government Institution, Banks, etc. shall be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Officers and that the certificate relied on by the second respondent was subsequent to the Government Order. He further submitted that though the second respondent by his representation dated 211. 2006, undertook to produce the Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer by 212. 2006, but, on the contrary, without producing the same, he preferred to approach the Tribunal. 8. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent reported no instructions from the second respondent. 9. It is not disputed that even as per the Tamil Nadu Government, subsequent to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 2137 dated 111. 1989, insofar as the Scheduled Tribe community of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the certificate given by the Revenue Divisional Officer only should be accepted for the purpose of employment under Government of India. Therefore, it is clear that on and after 111. 1989, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue community certificate to Scheduled Tribe Candidates in the State of Tamil Nadu. Admittedly, in the present case, the community certificate produced by the second respondent was dated 212. 1998, ie., after the Government Order, and, therefore, on and after the said date, the Revenue Divisional Officer alone is the competent authority and as such, the certificate relied on by the second respondent can only be stated to have been issued by an incompetent authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the second respondent is bound to produce the community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the petitioner Department is justified in insisting upon production of certificate from the competent authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the second respondent is bound to produce the community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the petitioner Department is justified in insisting upon production of certificate from the competent authority. But the Tribunal failed to see that the community certificate produced by the second respondent was not issued by the competent authority. 10. More over, it is to be noted that though a direction was issued by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26. 2007 to keep one post vacant and though the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri was directed to issue Community Certificate to the second respondent in the prescribed format vide order dated 07. 2007, subsequently, when the vacate stay petition was taken up for hearing, the interim stay granted on 25. 2009 was made absolute. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. No costs.