Judgment :- Common Judgment: (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.) The petitioner has obtained two community certificates, one from the Tahsildar, Usilampatti and the other one from the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk as if belonging to Konda Reddy community, a Scheduled Tribe community and based on the said community certificates, he joined the services of Life Insurance Corporation of India as Typist and was later promoted as Stenographer. Subsequently, the community certificates of the petitioner were referred by the LIC to the Collector of Madurai and the Collector of Chennai and on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, the Collector of Madurai, by order dated 10. 1991, had cancelled the community certificate of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.15496 of 1991, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order dated 17. 1999, resulting in filing of W.A.No.1282 of 1999 by the petitioner. 2. In the meantime, the Government of Tamilnadu, has constituted the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The District Vigilance Committee, Chennai District, conducted the enquiry during the year 2000 and passed an order in its proceedings No.P5/2457/89 in the month of October, 2000, cancelling the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17536 of 2000, praying to forbear the LIC from taking any action against him by initiating any proceeding for termination of his service and this Court, by the order dated 110. 2000, has directed the Zonal Manager, LIC, Chennai-2, not to take any proceeding against the petitioner for termination for a period of six weeks, during which time, the petitioner can move the appellate authority for suitable relief, if the order of the District Vigilance Committee goes against him. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed his appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It has been stated on the part of the petitioner that on 27. 2001, he had appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and requested for time to produce more documents and it is alleged that the Committee refused to give time and compelled the petitioner to sign a statement prepared by the Committee to the effect that no further evidence is to be adduced. 2001, he had appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and requested for time to produce more documents and it is alleged that the Committee refused to give time and compelled the petitioner to sign a statement prepared by the Committee to the effect that no further evidence is to be adduced. It is seen that on the same day, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.13799 of 2001, seeking for a direction to the State Level Scrutiny Committee not to pass final orders on the basis of the statement prepared by it. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, with an observation that it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps after passing of any order by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, by the order dated 20.9.2001, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, with a copy marked to the LIC, based on which, the LIC terminated the services of the petitioner. 3. From the materials placed on record, it is further seen that as against the said order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the consequential order of dismissal passed by the LIC, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.19523 of 2001 and a learned single judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition with the following observations: "7. For all these reasons, I am inclined to quash the order passed by the District Level Vigilance Committee as well as the State Level Scrutiny Committee and direct that the matter should be examined by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in accordance with law. Opportunity should be given to all concerned to adduce further evidence and to produce documents. If there is any doubt regarding authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, the State Level Committee may send such documents for scientific examination by an expert. The fresh enquiry should be concluded within a period of eight months from the date of communication of the order. 8. The order of termination by Life Insurance Corporation of India is based upon the conclusion reached by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The fresh enquiry should be concluded within a period of eight months from the date of communication of the order. 8. The order of termination by Life Insurance Corporation of India is based upon the conclusion reached by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. If ultimately the State Level Scrutiny Committee comes to a conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community, the order of dismissal would become non-operative and it would be deemed as the petitioner is in service and he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including payment of backwages and increment for the entire period from the date of the order of dismissal. On the other hand, if the State Level Scrutiny Committee comes to a conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to Konda Reddy community, the order of dismissal would stand confirmed." .4. Aggrieved over the above said order passed by the learned single Judge, in not quashing the consequential order of termination passed by the LIC, the petitioner has preferred Writ Appeal No.2221 of 2003 before this Court, along with WAMP.No.3202 of 2003 for interim direction. This Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 12. 2003, observing that the learned single Judge has directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to hold fresh enquiry in respect of the same subject matter consistent with the provision of law and if the petitioner succeeds in the fresh enquiry, certainly, the order of termination becomes non-operative and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the State Level Scrutiny Committee and appeared before it on 11. 2004. The said Committee, by its order dated 210. 2004, has rejected the claim of the petitioner and consequently cancelled the community certificates issued to the petitioner and to his family members, further instructing the authorities concerned to remove the petitioner from service forthwith, if he was recruited in the place meant for Scheduled Tribe and also directed the District Collector, Chennai to ensure that criminal case is booked against the petitioner for having furnished false information, in obtaining ST community certificate. Challenging the said order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.37118 of 2004. Challenging the said order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.37118 of 2004. Since both the above matters are interconnected with each other, they both are taken up for a joint hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued at length and has repeatedly submitted before us that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has not afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to prove his case and that even though the learned single Judge has directed the Committee to send the documents relied upon by the petitioner for scientific examination by an expert if there is any doubt regarding their authenticity, the documents were not sent for expert opinion on the ground that the documents are laminated and this is nothing but a clear violation of the directions issued by this Court. He has further submitted that though the petitioner has submitted 38 documents, all of them were not considered and only 25 documents were taken into consideration and the entire reasoning of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is against law and would pray to allow the writ appeal and writ petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Governmental authorities would submit that it is not a case of lack of opportunity, since at each and every stage, the petitioner has been afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities and the State Level Scrutiny Committee has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, after affording sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and therefore, would pray to dismiss both the writ appeal and the writ petition. .7. On the part of the LIC, the learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner was appointed as against a ST vacancy, based on the community certificates produced by him, as if is belonging to ST community, and when the same are found to be spurious, they got every right to proceed against the employee, which has been promptly done in the case on hand, slapping an order of dismissal on the petitioner and would submit that there is no illegality in their action. 8. 8. Regarding the aspect of lack of opportunity urged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are not in a position to affix our seal of approval for the same, since the material on record would speak contra. From the very many litigations initiated by the petitioner, we are able to see that at every point of time, he is raking up the similar plea, even though many opportunities were afforded to him by the authorities concerned, to substantiate his case. Even in the case on hand, from the voluminous material available on record, we are able to find that after the order passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner approached the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 11. 2004. He was summoned to appear before the Committee on 22. 2004 and on 3. 2004. On 3. 2004, the petitioner appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee along with his counsel and also adduced his evidence, which has also been properly recorded. The witness produced by the petitioner by name T.G.Raghupathy Reddy was also present and he adduced his evidence on 3. 2004 itself. The other witness produced by the petitioner was T.N.Govindasamy, whose deposition was recorded on 23. 2004. Besides this, the petitioner has also produced documentary evidence in support of his claim and was throughout assisted by his counsel. The petitioner was further summoned on 7. 2004 and he appeared before the Committee along with his counsel and adduced his further evidence. When the petitioner was given such opportunities not only to examine himself, but also to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of his case, which he has also availed that too in the presence of his counsel, what does he mean to say that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity is a question, which has not been answered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except repeatedly urging that he may be granted one more opportunity. When all sufficient and reasonable opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner by the Committee, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner somehow wants to prolong the matter and seems to have taken a vow to fight such losing battles and somehow pressurise the authorities to accede to his illegal demand, by complaining that he is deprived of a reasonable opportunity. At the cost of repetition, we held that the petitioner has been afforded with sufficient and reasonable opportunities by the Committee and he is not entitled for any further opportunity. 9. Coming to the other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of a specific direction by the learned single Judge of this Court that the documents may be sent for expert opinion, in case of any doubt regarding their authenticity, the same were not sent by the Committee for expert opinion on the ground that all the documents are laminated, even though we are unable to find any such observation in the lengthy order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, we are able to see that all the relevant documents have been properly appreciated by the Committee in the manner known to law. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in not referring the documents to the expert, since it is not compulsory or mandatory, but only advisory direction that has been given by the learned single Judge. 10. Coming to the main aspect of the case, regarding the social status of the petitioner, the State Level Vigilance Committee, has deputed an Anthropologist to conduct a detailed study in specific areas at Katpadi and Vellore Taluk in Vellore District, who has submitted his report to the Committee on 25. 2004, after conducting a study in three villages in Vellore District viz. (1) Thondanthulasi Village of Katpadi Taluk, (2) Paleya Thondanthulasi village of Katpadi Taluk and (3) Thuttipattu village of Vellore Taluk. The Anthropologist has even furnished the genealogy of the petitioner. From the report furnished by the Anthropologist, it is seen that the petitioner married a woman belonging to Reddiar community and after her death, he married another woman belonging to Naidu community. The field level detailed study confirmed the fact that the cultural characteristics of the petitioners family are having similarities only with the Reddiar community and not with the community characteristics of Kondareddi tribal community. 11. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that in the School Admission Register extract furnished by Fathima Matriculation Higher Secondary School in respect of the sister of the petitioner, by name T.R.Renukadevi, the Religion of the individual was mentioned as Hindu and caste as Brahmin. 11. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that in the School Admission Register extract furnished by Fathima Matriculation Higher Secondary School in respect of the sister of the petitioner, by name T.R.Renukadevi, the Religion of the individual was mentioned as Hindu and caste as Brahmin. However, another School TC has been furnished by the same school authorities with No.3 admission No.952 wherein the word Brahmin has been expunged and substituted by the word Konda Reddy, but it is not known who has substituted the word Brahmin with the word Konda Reddy and based on what document. .12. The petitioner while joining the LIC, has produced the School Leaving Certificate issued on 13. 1979, where the community has not been mentioned as ST or SC, even though, according to the petitioner, he has obtained the community certificate as belonging to Konda Reddy community from the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane on 14. 1978 itself, which shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner to hide a known fact, so as to twist the same for his own benefit at a future date. Even in his deposition before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has admitted that there was no entry in the school register or Admission Register or School Certificates to the effect that he belongs to ST community. 13. On a thorough scrutiny of the entire materials placed on record, we are able to see that neither the petitioner nor his ancestors belong to the Konda Reddy community and it seems the father of the petitioner (who seems to be no more) has orchestrated the entire episode of creating false community certificates for the benefit of his children. While the school certificate of the petitioners sister shows that she belongs to Brahmin community, the petitioners certificates are silent about the community. Even from the fact that the petitioner had chosen a lady from the Reddiar community to marry and on her death married another lady from Naidu community, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has produced spurious and false community certificate and joined the services of LIC as if he is belonging to ST community. Even from the fact that the petitioner had chosen a lady from the Reddiar community to marry and on her death married another lady from Naidu community, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has produced spurious and false community certificate and joined the services of LIC as if he is belonging to ST community. While for the sake of social status, he wanted to maintain as a Reddy, for the sake of his individual benefit he is claiming as if he is belonging to Konda Reddy community, solely with a view to deceive the authorities and to snatch away the benefits extended to such underprivileged communities by the Constitution. .14. The Constitution of India has guaranteed equal rights and afforded reservations for the communities, which are oppressed for generations together and the persons like the petitioner, who belong to an upper class community, are falsely claiming the benefits extended to oppressed communities, wrongly claiming as if they belong to an underprivileged community, sole with a view to reap the benefits extended to such underprivileged community people, at the cost of the welfare of such people. The petitioner and his deceased father have attempted to play fraud on the Constitution, taking advantage of the fact of similarity between the words Reddy and Konda Reddy and if people of this type are let out freely without being prosecuting and punishing, it, in our considered view, would amount to raping the Constitution, further shaking the confidence of the people. 15. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and has correctly arrived at the conclusion of rejecting the claim of the petitioner, further ordering to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner, wherein we find no illegality or irregularity of whatsoever and we find no merits in the above Writ Appeal and Writ Petition and both are, accordingly, dismissed. The District Collector, Chennai is directed to implement the directions of the State Level Scrutiny Committee within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.12126 of 1999 and WPMP.Nos.44559 and 44560 of 2004 are closed.