Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2469 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated 28.03.2001 passed by the 3rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi and sought for further direction to continue as Village Administrative Officer of Irrukkanthurai, Part I, Radhapuram Taluk. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioners services were terminated on the ground that the District Vigilance Committee presided by the Chairman, District Collector, Tiruvannamalai found that the community certificate produced by him showing that he belong to Sholaga, a scheduled tribe was not valid and the certificate given by Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 16.06.1981 was false. In view of the finding given by the District Vigilance Committee, the petitioners appointment was terminated. 3. The Tribunal, while admitting the original application, granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order. Subsequently, the interim order came to be extended until further orders. On notice from the Tribunal, the District Collector has filed a reply affidavit dated 27.07.2001. 4. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.2252 of 2007. 5. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners community certificate was sent for verification by the Community Certificate Verification and Vigilance Committee. The State Committee conducted an enquiry on 18.12.2000, 22.01.2001, 26.02.2001 and 27.03.2001. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry and avoided the same on some flimsy ground. Finally, after several adjournments, the petitioner was asked to appear on 27.03.2001 by sending the notice by registered post. The petitioner did not appear and do not offer any explanation. Thereafter, the Committee examined and perused the connected records and found that he did not belong to Sholaga community which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes community. It is only because the Committee has also cancelled the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 16.06.1981, the petitioner could not be allowed to hold the post on the basis that he was a scheduled tribe. Reliance was also placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. It is only because the Committee has also cancelled the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 16.06.1981, the petitioner could not be allowed to hold the post on the basis that he was a scheduled tribe. Reliance was also placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that when scrutiny committee scrutinises comes to the conclusion that the certificate obtained was a false certificate, then there is no question of retaining a Government servant on the basis of the false certificate. Mere fact that the petitioner continued in employment on the basis of an interim order passed by the Tribunal will not help the case of the petitioner. 6. The Supreme Court recently vide its Judgment in Addl. G.M.-Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, (2007) 5 SCC 336 , has held as follows:- "11. In Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar3 the employee had got an appointment on 15-10-1976 on a post which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate on 18-7-1987 which was challenged by the employee. After several rounds of litigation his services were terminated on 28-2-2002. After referring to the decision in Milind1 and some other decisions, this Court allowed the appeal of the employer affirming the order of termination of service of the employee. Para 6 of the Report where the principle was laid down reads as under: (SCC p. 697) 6. Respondent 1 employee obtained appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. When the clear finding of the Scrutiny Committee is that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, the very foundation of his appointment collapses and his appointment is no appointment in the eye of the law. There is absolutely no justification for his claim in respect of the post he usurped, as the same was meant for a reserved candidate 14. In the case in hand the respondent got appointment on 31-5-1982 on a post, which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribe. On receiving complaints the employer referred the matter to the District Collector, Nagpur and also to the Scrutiny Committee in March 1991. In the case in hand the respondent got appointment on 31-5-1982 on a post, which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribe. On receiving complaints the employer referred the matter to the District Collector, Nagpur and also to the Scrutiny Committee in March 1991. The subsequent period has been spent in making enquiry and in litigation as the respondent filed three writ petitions. In view of the principle laid down by this Court we are clearly of the opinion that his services were rightly terminated by the appellant and the High Court was in error in directing his reinstatement. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, has to be set aside. 7. In the light of the same, the writ petition stand dismissed. No costs.