Judgment :- D.MURUGESAN, J. 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University to issue her the M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate (Register No.52991352). 2. The writ petition arises under the following circumstances. The petitioners father preferred an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri in the year 1997 for issue of community certificate to the petitioner certifying that she belongs to "Kurumans community", which is notified to be one of Scheduled Tribe. After verification and enquiry, such a certificate was issued on 7.4.97 to the petitioner. Based on the said certificate, she appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination in the academic year 1999-2000 and sought for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Degree Course. She was selected and admitted to Stanley Medical College, Chennai. She produced the said certificate at the time of admission. 3. The said community certificate was sought to be verified by the District Vigilance Committee, Dharmapuri at the instance of the college and by order dated 8.3.2002, it was cancelled. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the same was dismissed on 2.5.2005. In the meantime, the petitioner completed the M.B.B.S. Degree Course, but she was not permitted to join the House Surgeon Course (C.R.R.I.) in view of the order cancelling the community certificate and she was also expelled from the college. Questioning the order of cancellation, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.19599 of 2005 and obtained an order of interim stay on 17.6.2005 and further obtained a direction to the college to permit her to continue the C.R.R.I. course. By a subsequent order dated 30.8.2005, both the orders of the District Vigilance Committee, Dharmapuri and the State Level Scrutiny Committee were set aside by this Court and the petitioner was also permitted to complete the House Surgeon Course. This Court also directed that the petitioner would not be entitled for Course Completion Certificate till such time an appropriate committee was constituted by the State Government in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court to decide the community status. 4. The said order was questioned by the State by filing Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the matter is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner also completed the C.R.R.I. Course. However, she was not issued with the Course Completion Certificate. 4. The said order was questioned by the State by filing Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the matter is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner also completed the C.R.R.I. Course. However, she was not issued with the Course Completion Certificate. Hence she filed W.P.No.470 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue the C.R.R.I. Course completion certificate. Along with the writ petition, she also filed W.P.M.P.No.1165 of 2007 for a similar relief. By order dated 23.4.2007, this Court directed the issuance of Course completion certificate and Pass certificate subject to the decision in the S.L.P. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with the C.R.R.I. Course completion certificate on 29.8.2007. However, she was not issued with the M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate as well as final Provisional Certificate. Subsequently, on her request, she was issued with the final Provisional Certificate also on 27.11.2007. As the M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate has not been issued, she has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents for issuance of M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate. 5. We have heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Naganathan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.B.Cheran, learned counsel for the second respondent. 6. The question is whether the petitioner, having been allowed to complete the course and issued with the C.R.R.I. Certificate and the Provisional certificate, could be deprived of the benefit of issuance of the M.B.B.S. Degree certificate. 7. The Supreme Court in the judgment in Additional General Manager-Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, (2007) 5 SCC 336 , while considering a similar question, has observed as follows:- "11. In Bank of India v. Avinash D.Mandivikar, (2005) 7 SCC 690 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 Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 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. 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." In State of Maharashtra v. Milind, AIR 2001 SC 393 , the Supreme Court again observed in paragraph-38 as below:- "38. The respondent joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have since passed. He is stated to have already completed the course and may be practising as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobodys benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to the respondent. If any action is taken against the respondent, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Moreover, any appointment that have become final shall remain unaffected by the instant judgment." 8. In the above judgment, the Supreme Court was considering a case where the community certificate was cancelled after a period of 15 years and in such circumstance, the Court directed the issuance of Course Completion Certificate. The said judgment was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment in R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , wherein the Supreme Court, in paragraph-28, observed as follows:- "In this case we find that the appellant had joined Regional Engineering College in the year 1992. The said judgment was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment in R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , wherein the Supreme Court, in paragraph-28, observed as follows:- "In this case we find that the appellant had joined Regional Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of the High Court which were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind we direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him. His caste certificate has been ordered to be cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to the general category for all purposes." 9. The Supreme Court, while considering a case where a candidate was admitted without there being a minimum eligibility and was allowed to complete the course, in A.Sudha v. University of Mysore and another, AIR 1987 SC 2305 , had observed in paragraph 18 as follows:- "18. The facts of the instant case are more or less, similar to the Rajendra Prasad Mathurs case (supra) ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ). It has been already noticed that on the appellants query, the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS course. It was, inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 54% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. It was, inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 54% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS Course. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course. Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the MBBS course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and specific. Be that as it may, following the decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathurs case (supra) while we dismiss the appeal, we direct that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS Course, and that her result for the First year MBBS Examination be declared within two weeks from date." In the above judgment, the Supreme Court had in fact quoted the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeals, allowed the appellants therein to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. 10. However, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) 5 SCC 652 , wherein the Supreme Court, in paragraph 9, had observed as follows:- "9. As observed in Milind, if the appellants admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobodys benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone else. There is also no allegation that the appellant forged or faked the caste certificate. As observed in Milind, if the appellants admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobodys benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone else. There is also no allegation that the appellant forged or faked the caste certificate. His admission to engineering course was nearly thirteen years back and he secured the degree more than four years back. We are therefore of the view that the appellant herein should be permitted to retain the benefit of the degree but subject to terms. The first is that he shall not claim or seek any further benefit by claiming to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The second is that if the State has spent or incurred any expenditure on the appellants professional degree education by extending the benefit of exemption from payment of fee or award of scholarship or by extending the benefit of concession in fee (that is less than what is charged to general category students) by treating him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the appellant cannot retain such financial benefits. The third respondent may, on behalf of the State Government, take appropriate steps to enquire and assess the amount, if any spent on the appellant either towards fee, scholarship or by way of concession in fee and make a demand on the appellant for payment thereof. If the appellant fails to pay the amount so found due within six months of the demand by the third respondent, the third respondent may take steps for recalling the degree granted to the appellant. If no amount is found to be due or if the amount determined and demanded is paid by the appellant, he may be permitted to retain the degree obtained by him." 11. A careful reading of the above judgments of the Supreme Court would show that in the event the certificate furnished by a candidate for employment is found to be not genuine, then such an employee would not be entitled to any benefit by a mere fact that he had secured employment and on that basis he can continue in such employment. On the other hand, the Supreme Court had made a different approach in respect of candidates admitted to a course. On the other hand, the Supreme Court had made a different approach in respect of candidates admitted to a course. In the event a candidate is admitted to a course on the basis of the certificate which is found to be not genuine at a later point of time, such a candidate could not be deprived of the benefit of the course undertaken and can be issued with the certificate. Even such an indulgence is available to a candidate only in the event the authorities had failed to verify the genuineness of the certificate within a reasonable period and there has been a delay. In the event there is a delay on the part of the authorities and by that delay or by the orders of the Court the candidate was admitted and who had in turn completed the course, then the benefit of such course cannot be curtailed. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the community certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 1997 and on that basis she was admitted to the course in the year 1999. By various orders of this Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue the M.B.B.S. Degree Course, C.R.R.I. Course and was also issued with the C.R.R.I. Course Completion Certificate as well as the final Provisional Certificate. Hence the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the second respondent to issue the M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate (Register No.52991352) to the petitioner. However, we make it clear that the said direction is subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition. No costs.