Judgment F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 212. 2001, passed in W.P.No.25563 of 2001. .2. The issue relates to the verification of community certificate of the appellant dated 23.04.1998, stating that she belongs to Hindu Paraiyar community. The appellant was issued with a show cause notice by the second respondent dated 111. 2001. According to the appellant, she was born in the year 1969 in a remote village Puliyarai in Shencottah Taluk at Tirunelveli District; that after her initial education, she also acquired vocational education in Secondary Grade Teacher Training Course conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu; that she married Thiru.Vanchinathan, who belongs to Schedule Caste Community in the year 1989; that she got enrolled her name in the District Employment Exchange; that she is stated to have secured appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in an Adi Dravidar Middle School situated in Veerovanallur at Tirunelveli District in the year 1998. 3. The appellant further states that though at the time of her birth, her parents were following Christianity, their lineal ancestors and decedents were following Hinduism. According to her as she also got married to a Hindu Scheduled Caste, she continued to follow the Hindu customs and rituals. She also stated to have got converted from Christianity to Hinduism in the year 1997 after performing the conventional rituals before the Arulyogi Sri.M.R.O.Gopalasamy Selvakoodal Vinayaga Moorthy, Madaly, Parthibanur and that a certificate was also issued to her mentioning her name as S.Subbulakshmi. She also stated to have published the same in the Tamil Nadu Gazette Vide No.43, dated 011. 1997, in part VI-Section A at Page 911 to show that her religious status and change of name was duly authenticated. 4. It is only thereafter, according to the appellant, she applied for community certificate in the year 1997 with the concerned Thasildar of Tenkasi in the prescribed form with all the required documents who is stated to have issued the community certificate bearing No.75/95, dated 23.04.1998, certifying that she belongs to "SC Hindu Praiyer"" community. 5. It is in the above stated background, the impugned show cause notice dated 111. 2001, came to be issued and the appellant approached this Court challenging the same contending that after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patel Vs. 5. It is in the above stated background, the impugned show cause notice dated 111. 2001, came to be issued and the appellant approached this Court challenging the same contending that after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patel Vs. Additional Commissioner reported in ( (1994) 6 SCC 241 ) the invalidation which is sought to be held by the District Collector based on the Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which report came to be submitted by him behind the back of the appellant, cannot be proceeded with. .6. A perusal of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer discloses that based on the various documents placed by the appellant, he reached the conclusion that there was every scope for the appellant to have forged the school certificate for the purpose of securing the community certificate. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his report submitted that the community certificate dated 23.04.1998, should be cancelled and that the appellant should be proceeded against by way of criminal prosecution. 7. After the Madhuri Patels case, the State Government has constituted the District Level Scrutiny Committees and the State Level Scrutiny Committee for verifying the genuineness of the community certificate of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. 8. In our considered opinion, such verification should be independently made by the respective Committees, uninfluenced by any other unilateral report of any other authority. Therefore, even while holding that the show cause notice issued to the appellant calling upon her to appear before the District Level Scrutiny Committee cannot be faulted, it will have to be made clear that the District Level Scrutiny Committee should independently examine the correctness of the claim of the appellant with regard to the community certificate dated 23.04.1998, issued to her, by holding an appropriate enquiry in which the appellant should also be permitted to participate. In other words, uninfluenced by whatever stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his enquiry report dated 010. 2001, the second respondent District Level Scrutiny Committee has to examine the correctness and genuineness of the community certificate of the appellant dated 23.04.1998. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that the criminal prosecution launched against her for the alleged forgery committed by her has also ended in acquittal in her favour. .10. 2001, the second respondent District Level Scrutiny Committee has to examine the correctness and genuineness of the community certificate of the appellant dated 23.04.1998. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that the criminal prosecution launched against her for the alleged forgery committed by her has also ended in acquittal in her favour. .10. If that be so, it is for the appellant to place the said fact before the second respondent Committee while enquiring into the issue relating to the genuineness of the appellants community certificate. Therefore, this writ appeal stands disposed of directing the second respondent District Level Scrutiny Committee to hold a fresh enquiry as to the genuineness of the community certificate of the appellant dated 23.04.1998, by giving due opportunity to the appellant. In such enquiry, it is open to the appellant to place all documentary evidence available in her support. While holding the enquiry, we reiterate that the second respondent Committee shall not be influenced by the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 010. 2001. In other words, the second respondent Committee shall hold the enquiry and pass orders independently and uninfluenced by whatever stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his report dated 010. 2001. The second respondent shall however hold the enquiry and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant should co-operate with the second respondent by duly attending to the day to day hearing fixed by the second respondent. 11. The interim order dated 22.04.2002, to the effect that until further orders, the cancellation of the community certificate is suspended, will hold good till final orders are passed by the second respondent District Level Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel also submitted that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.2009, relating to the claim of reconverted Hindus from Christianity. It is also open to the appellant to rely upon the said G.O. in support of her claim before the second respondent Committee and it is for the Committee to consider the said claim in accordance with law. The connected miscellaneous petitioners are closed. No costs.