Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The community certificate was ordered to be cancelled by proceedings in Na.Ka. No.J1/67210/99 dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the 2nd respondent. The same is under challenge in the present case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his paternal grandfather belonged to Hindu Parayan Community (Adi Dravidar – Scheduled Caste). His parents converted as Christians and he was born on 15th Jan., 1954 to Christian parents, namely, A. Sabarimuthu (father) and Antonyammal (mother). Being a Christian, his original name was Selvaraj. After reconversion to Hinduism on 27th Sept., 1981, he is known as S. Arunachalam. The conversion matter was noticed and published in the Government Gazette on 2nd Dec., 1981. After due enquiry, he was provided with community certificate on 23rd July 1983, by the Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur. But, the Three Men Committee annulled the community certificate by its proceeding dated 15th July, 2002, on which basis the impugned proceeding dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the District vigilance Committee. The said order has been passed without supplying the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srivilliputtur, as noticed in the proceeding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:- a) the proceeding dated 28th March, 2008, is illegal, the petitioner having not supplied with the copy of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srivilliputtur, which has been noticed by the District Vigilance Committee; and b) the impugned proceeding is based on Letter No.81 dated 19th Sept., 2000, issued from Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department of the State, which has already been set aside by this Court and stands superceded by G.O. Ms.No.1 dated 2nd Jan., 2009, issued by the State Government from Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Three Men Committee, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and taking into consideration all the relevant materials placed before it has given the finding that the petitioner do not belong to Scheduled Caste category. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 5. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 5. From the report of the Three Men Committee dated 15th July 2002, the following fact emerges:- i) The petitioner has produced the Tamil Nadu Government Notification dated 2nd Dec., 1981, in support of his claim that his name and religion was changed, but without giving any reason to disbelieve such gazette notification, the Three Men committee disbelieved the same; ii) Though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 in the service of the 3rd respondent, i.e., much after his conversion, but the Three Men Committee erred in holding that the petitioner converted to Hindu religion after he joined the service; and iii) The Three Men Committee noticed Supreme Court decision in SLP (Civil) No.27571/95 dated 25th Jan., 1996, based on which G.O. Ms. No.81 dated 19th Sept., 2000, was issued, but it failed to notice that the said Government Order dated 19th Sept., 2001, has been set aside by this Court and stands superceded by a subsequent notification. 6. It has not been disputed that the clarification letter of the State No.81 dated 19th Sept., 2000, was issued only taking into account one of the judgment of the Supreme Court, ignoring other judgments, including constitution Bench judgment. For the said reason, when the said letter No.81 dated 19th Sept., 2000, fell for consideration before a Division Bench, this Court in W.P.No.14769/02, by order dated 13th April, 2007, set aside the explanatory part of the letter and remitted the matter to the State Government to issue fresh clarification, taking into consideration and giving reference to other judgments rendered by Supreme Court. Pursuant to such order of this Court, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. Pursuant to such order of this Court, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No.1 dated 2nd Jan., 2009, from its Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, clarifying the earlier ambiguity and made following clarification at para-4, as quoted hereunder:- “The children born to Christian Schedule Caste parents, i.e., Christian by birth, converted to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism at a later date and the Scheduled Caste parents embracing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism converted to other religion and subsequently reconverted Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, if they are accepted by their community people, the revenue authorities can issue Schedule Caste community certificate to them to become eligible for the constitutional Privileges conformed on the Hindu Schedule Caste (following Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism) and other accordingly.” In this background and as clarificatory part of letter No.81 dated 19th Sept., 2000 has been set aside and that stands superceded by subsequent clarification given by the State Government vide G.O.Ms. No.1 dated 2nd Jan., 2009, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner requires reconsideration. 7. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the impugned proceeding of the District Vigilance Committee dated 28th March, 2008, is based on the Three Men Committee’s report and that the said Three Men Committee’s report is based on letter No.81 dated 19th Sept., 2000, which has been set aside by this Court and that the Three Men Committee erred in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner obtained the community certificate after entering into the service and that the said Three Men Committee also gave no reason to discard the Government Notification dated 2nd Dec., 1981, whereby the change of name and religion of the petitioner was gazetted, for the said reason also the matter requires reconsideration. We, accordingly, set aside the report dated 15th July 2002, submitted by the Three Men Committee as also the proceedings dated 28th March, 2008 of the District Vigilance Committee. The case is remitted with direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of clarification of the State Government given vide G.O., Ms.No.1 dated 2nd Jan., 2009 and the evidence on record. If necessary, further enquiry may be made after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. But, there shall be no order as to costs.