Judgment : Per M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief of writ of certiorari to call for the records in Proceedings No. 39940/CVII/2007 dated 29.1.2009 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee/1st respondent and to quash the same. 2. According to the petitioner, he hails from Konda Reddi, a tribal Community, native of Kumbikulam Madura, Seelathi Kulam Village at Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. He is the Secretary of the Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association, Southern Region and a Member of the Ahila Bharathia Adi Vasi Vihas Parishad. He is appointed on 26.10.1984 as Typist in the office of the 2nd respondent/Life Insurance Corporation, Tirunelveli as Proportioner under the Scheduled Tribes quota as against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He has been confirmed in the post of Typist on 26.4.1985. 3. According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment, besides producing Educational Qualification Certificate, he has furnished the following documents: (a) A Community Certificate issued by Deputy Tahsildhar, Additional Head Quarters, Naguneri Taluk dated 1.7.1980; (b) A Certificate issued by the District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 30.12.1983; and (c) A certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 10.9.1984. The 2nd respondent, on 9.4.1991 acting on an anonymous letter, has referred his Community Certificate issued by various authorities to the District Collector, Tirunelveli. On 4.10.1991, the 2nd respondent issued a letter to him stating that the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 10.9.1984 is not a genuine one. He filed a police complaint through his father dated 19.12.1991. The petitioner has applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi on 14.2.1992 requesting for the issuance of Konda Reddy Community Certificate on the basis of documents produced. The Revenue Divisional Officer has requested to him to produce the Nativity Certificate. After obtaining the Nativity Certificate and other relevant documents, he addressed a letter dated 18.3.1992 to the Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi praying for the issuance of Community Certificate. The 2nd respondent has sent the certificates issued by the Deputy Tahsildhar, Additional Head Quarters, Nanguneri Taluk dated 1.7.1980 and the certificate issued by the District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 30.12.1983 for verification. The Tirunelveli District Community Verification Vigilance Committee (a two member committee), without following the procedures and principles of natural justice, has come to the conclusion that as per proceedings dated 6.08.1999, he does not belong to Konda Reddy Community. 4. The Tirunelveli District Community Verification Vigilance Committee (a two member committee), without following the procedures and principles of natural justice, has come to the conclusion that as per proceedings dated 6.08.1999, he does not belong to Konda Reddy Community. 4. Aggrieved against the order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Tirunelveli District Community Certificate Verification Vigilance Committee, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 14280 of 1999 before this Court and this Court, by its order dated 27.7.2005, has quashed the proceedings of the said Committee dated 6.8.1999 by giving directions to place the matter before the Three Member District Level Vigilance Committee formed as per G.O. Ms. No. 111 AD and TW Department dated 6.7.2005. Since the District Vigilance Committee has kept the matter pending for a long period, he filed W.P. (MD). No. 1210 of 2007 and an order dated 4.10.2007 has been passed wherein the matter has been directed to be decided by the Three Member State Level Scrutiny Committee, as per G.O. (2D) No. 108 AD and TW Department dated 12.9.2007. The State Level Scrutiny Committee on 27.1.2009 has called the petitioner for an enquiry to submit his explanation with necessary documents. On that day, he presented himself before the 1st respondent and submitted his detailed explanation with all necessary documents to prove that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community. He produced Sale Deeds registered in the name of his ancestors, relatives and Community Certificate of other relatives stating that he belong to Konda Reddy Community. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1139, Social Welfare Department, dated 23.3.1982, the powers have been conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officers to issue Community Certificate to persons belonging to Konda Reddy Community, a Scheduled Tribe. The Government Order also speaks of that the Sale Deeds and other documents, community certificate of other relatives can be construed to declare that a person belongs to Konda Reddy Community. The Community Certificates furnished by him have been issued by various authorities after fulfilling the G.O. Ms. No. 1139, Social Welfare Department, dated 23.3.1982. Therefore, a further analysis of the genuineness of his Community Certificate is an unnecessary and unwarranted and that too after a lapse of more than several years. 6. The Community Certificates furnished by him have been issued by various authorities after fulfilling the G.O. Ms. No. 1139, Social Welfare Department, dated 23.3.1982. Therefore, a further analysis of the genuineness of his Community Certificate is an unnecessary and unwarranted and that too after a lapse of more than several years. 6. The petitioner has pleaded in his affidavit that he has produced all the relevant documents to prove that he belong to a Konda Reddy Community before the various authorities as and when required by them and that the respondent has not considered any of the same. Also, a plea is taken on behalf of the petitioner that in W.P. No. 4346 of 1982 and 4903 of 1982, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued a G.O. Ms. No. 9 dated 3.1.1983 in and by which, it is directed that the production of evidence such as Sale Deeds and the Community Certificate of relatives need not be insisted and diluted the condition that the Community Certificate may be issued after a due local enquiry. Besides this, he has also furnished the registered Sale Deeds of his ancestors and relatives in which their caste is clearly mentioned, the Community Certificates of his relatives viz. , Mr. Vasudevan, who is the cousin of his mother Kanakammal and one Venkatesh Madhan Kumar, Siva Gowri Shankar are all the sons of said Vasudevan, which has also been confirmed by the District Collector, Tuticorin as per his letter No. Na.Ka.E5/104131/93 dated 27.1.2000. 7. The petitioner has applied for a fresh Community Certificate on 26.2.2001 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi. The Revenue Divisional Officer has delegated the matter to the Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, who in turn sent the application to the Revenue Inspector and Zonal Deputy Tahsildar for field enquiry. The Revenue Inspector and Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk conducted a detailed personal and secret enquiry. In fact, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar has verified all the following documents submitted by him: (i) Sale Deed dated 19.10.1974 in Document No. 2055 of 1974 at Sub Registrar Office, Radhapuram (ii) Sale Deed dated 29.1.1975 in Document No. 198 of 1975 at Sub Registrar Offce, Radhapuram (iii) Sale Deed dated 15.4.1975 in Document No. 706 of 1975 at Sub Registrar Office, Radhapuram (iv) Sale Deed dated 12.4.1982 Document No. 602 of 1982 at Sub Registrar Office, Radhapuram (v) Certificate dated 12.1.1999 issued by VAO, Kumbikulam, Tirunelveli District. 8. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, upon perusing the aforesaid documents and on analysis, has recommended for issuance of Konda Reddy Community Certificate in favour of the petitioner as per proceedings dated 6.8.2001. The Tahsildar has submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider his case and he recommended to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, by proceedings dated 6.8.2001, that his case may be considered. 9. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is praying for quashing the impugned order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai - 600 009 in Proceedings No. 39940/ CVII/2007 dated 29.1.2009. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned in Proceedings No. 39940/ CVII/2007 dated 29.1.2009 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the said order is in negation of the fundamental rights and also the principles of natural justice. 11. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has committed an error in observing that the petitioner produced xerox copies of documents while in fact, he has furnished the attested the copies of the documents in a Bound Book Format. 12. Proceeding further, the Learned senior counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the respondent has not appreciated an important fact that after an expiry of six years after the issuance of Community Certificate, the 2nd respondent/Life Insurance Corporation has referred it for scrutiny. 13. The next submission of the Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee should have taken into account the Sale Deeds of the petitioner‘s father, ancestors and relatives and these documents, in fact, go to show that their community which are several decades before the recognition of their Community in the Scheduled Tribes list. 14. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent has failed to take into consideration of the fact that the petitioner has not been in a position to produce his S.S.L.C. Book and that of his elders since none of the elders are educated. 15. 14. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent has failed to take into consideration of the fact that the petitioner has not been in a position to produce his S.S.L.C. Book and that of his elders since none of the elders are educated. 15. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent cannot rely on the Anthropologist Report when a copy of the same has not been furnished to the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner takes a stand that if the petitioner‘s near relatives are furnished with the Konda Reddy Community Certificates, then, a prima facie view is that the petitioner belongs to the said community. 16. The other limb of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has deliberately misinterpreted the document viz., Residential Certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Radhapuram which shows that the petitioner hail from the Kumbikulam Village by mentioning that the said certificate cannot be taken as evidence of communal status of an individual and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 17. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has considered the statement of the petitioner, the report of the District Vigilance Committee and also the documentary evidence produced by him in support of his claim that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community and that the said Committee has observed in its report dated 29.1.2009 to the effect that the petitioner has not exhibited his original school records i.e. First Page of S.S.L.C. Book, his Transfer Certificate and that of his elders and further the Committee has also proceeded further to state, in its report, that in the xerox copy of Sale Deeds pertaining to the year 1902 and 1951 there is no Registration Seal, Proof of Registration like Registration Number, Date and Place of Registration. Added further, in the document, it is employed as Thamarai Konda Reddiar‘ and not mentioned as ‘Kondareddis‘ and in the documents produced by the petitioner his relatives names have been suffixed with the word ‘Reddiar‘ - classified as forward Community. Added further, in the document, it is employed as Thamarai Konda Reddiar‘ and not mentioned as ‘Kondareddis‘ and in the documents produced by the petitioner his relatives names have been suffixed with the word ‘Reddiar‘ - classified as forward Community. Indeed, Anthropologist and the Members of the State Level Scrutiny Committee who examined the social status, habits and cultural aspects of the petitioner have reported that he does not have the characteristics of Kondareddis Tribal Community. 18. In short, the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent is that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to establish his claim as Konda Reddy. But, he has not produced the original School Records and the Community Certificates. Therefore, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has passed the impugned order dated 29.1.2009 in Proceedings No. 39940/CVII/ 2007 by taking into consideration of all the relevant facts, attendant circumstances and also the materials on record and has also issued a direction to the Collector of Tirunelveli District to process and take criminal action against the individuals concerned and send a report to the Government in due course, which is a fair and reasonable one. As such, the said order does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality warranting any interference in the hands of this Court. 19. In response, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ Employer submits that the 2nd respondent as a Statutory Corporation has the authority to call for proof of Community Certificate at any point of time to verify its genuineness and the petitioner being an Employee of the 2nd respondent, he has a duty to co-operate with his Employer to prove his bona fide. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends that the petitioner has chosen to remain absent before the Tirunelveli District Community Certificate Verification Committee ,when his case has been referred to the said Committee and the Committee, in fact, on 6.8.1999, has, through its report, confirmed that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy Community and that the document dated 1.7.1980 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Additional Head Quarters, Naguneri Taluk has been in a forged and a fabricated one. Besides this, the said Tahsildar Office has issued a Community-cum-Income Certificate to one Vijayakumar S/o. Sri Devanesan Nadar and the document dated 10.9.1984 a Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer relied on by the petitioner has not been issued by the said Officer etc. That apart, it is the stand of the 2nd respondent that the High Court, in its order dated 27.7.2005 in W.P. No. 14280 of 1999, has quashed the proceedings of the District Vigilance Committee dated 6.8.1999 and has directed to place the matter before the Three Member District Vigilance Committee. Therefore, the petitioner‘s case has been referred to the District Vigilance Committee which was constituted as per G.O. (2D) No. 111, AD and TW (CVI) Department, dated 6.7.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1210 of 1997 before the Hon‘ble High Court, Madurai Bench and by an order dated 4.10.2007 a direction has been issued by the Hon‘ble High Court to refer the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee in accordance‘ with the G.O. (2D) No. 108, AD and TW (CVI) Department, dated 12.9.2007. 20. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry when the matter has been referred to the 1st respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee and the said Committee, after considering the documents mentioned by the petitioner in his affidavit etc., has come to a consequent conclusion that he does not belong to Konda Reddy Community as per its report dated 29.1.2009, which is a detailed speaking one. 21. The main contention of the Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Employer is that the petitioner has furnished the xerox copy of the extract of Secondary School Leaving Certificate at the time of employment which shows that he belongs to Reddiar Community and when he has been required to produce the originals of the said certificates, he has come out with a statement that the said documents has been misplaced and therefore, he has not produced the same. 22. 22. In support of the contention that non-furnishing of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Vigilance Committee to the petitioner and also the fact that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner in this regard, the cancellation of caste certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee is not a proper one, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in K. Prakalanathan v. Namakkal District Vigilance Committee, Namakkal and Others LNIND 2008 Mad 1771 : wherein at paragraph 13 and 14 it is held as follows: “13. Though the first respondent committee had placed reliance upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal dated 5.2.1999 and the statements of petitioner‘s mother, Village Administrative Officer and general public, copies of none of those documents were furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was deprived of fair opportunity to put-forth his case. Therefore, it is just, necessary and proper to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to furnish to the petitioner the report of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 5.2.1999, and the statements of witnesses recorded during enquiry. We hold that the impugned order passed by the first respondent per se in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is liable to be quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed and the order of the District Level Committee is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order from the Registry. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 2 of 2007 is closed.” 23. He also cites the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhurai Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others AIR 1995 SC 94 : (1994) 6 SCC 241 : LNIND 1994 SC 779 wherein it is held thus: “Despite the cultural advancement, the genetic traits pass on from generation to generation and no one could escape or forget or get them over. The tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities and are still being maintained and preserved. The tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities and are still being maintained and preserved. Their cultural advancement to some extent may have modernised and progressed but they would not be oblivious to or ignorant of their customary and cultural past to establish their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe. The Mahadeo Koli a Scheduled Tribe declared in the Presidential Notification 1950, itself is a tribe and is not a sub-caste. It is a hill tribe, may be like ‘Koya‘ in Andhra Pradesh. Kolis, a backward class, are fishermen by caste and profession and reside mostly in Maharashtra coastal area. Kolis have different sub-castes. Mahadeo Kolis reside in hill regions; agriculture, agricultural labour and gathering of minor forest produce and sale thereof is their avocation. Therefore, the cancellation of the social certificate issued by the Executive Magistrates concerned by the Scrutiny Committee was legal. Presidential declaration, subject to amendment by Parliament being conclusive, no addition to it or declaration of castes/tribes or sub-castes/parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities is permissible. The entries in the school register preceding the do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste. Hierarchical caste stratification of Hindu social order has its reflection in all entries in the public records. What would, therefore, depict the caste status of the people inclusive of the school or college records, as the then census rules insisted upon. Undoubtedly, Hindu social order is based on hierarchy and caste was one of the predominant factors during pre- period. Caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public records or school or college admission register at the relevant time and the certificates are issued on its basis. The father of the appellants admittedly described himself in 1943 and thereafter as a Hindu Koli. In other words, his status was declared a Koli by caste and Hindu by religion. Kolis are admittedly OBCs. His feigned ignorance of the ancestry is too hard to believe. The averment in the affidavit that the entries were mistakenly made as Hindu Koli is an obvious afterthought. In other words, his status was declared a Koli by caste and Hindu by religion. Kolis are admittedly OBCs. His feigned ignorance of the ancestry is too hard to believe. The averment in the affidavit that the entries were mistakenly made as Hindu Koli is an obvious afterthought. The anthropological moorings and ethnological kinship affinity gets genetically ingrained in the blood and no one would shake off from past, in particular, when one is conscious of the need of preserving its relevance to seek the status of Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste recognised by the for their upliftment in the society. The ingrained tribal traits peculiar to each tribe and anthropological features all the more become relevant when the social status is in acute controversy and needs a decision. The correct projectives furnished in pro forma and the material would lend credence and give an assurance to properly consider the claims of the social status and the officer or authority concerned would get an opportunity to test the claim for social status of particular caste or tribe or tribal community or group or part of such caste, tribe or tribal community. It or he would reach a satisfactory conclusion on the claimed social status. The father of the appellant has failed to satisfy the crucial affinity test which is relevant and germane one. On the other hand the entries in his school and college registers as Hindu Koli positively belies the claim of‘ his social status as Scheduled Tribe. Other documents furnished by the candidates are those manipulated and fabricated with to knock of the seats in educational institutions defrauding the true Schedule Tribes to their detriment and deprivation. As the school record of the candidate‘s father shows his caste as ‘Koli‘, the caste certificates which have been issued to the appellants and their relatives by the Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay are without proper enquiry and investigation, besides being without jurisdiction. Its reiteration in service record would not carry any credibility or a ground to accept the caste as Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate issued by Samaj being self-serving and subject to scrutiny, they cannot be held to be conclusive proof to determine the caste claim. Its reiteration in service record would not carry any credibility or a ground to accept the caste as Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate issued by Samaj being self-serving and subject to scrutiny, they cannot be held to be conclusive proof to determine the caste claim. The finding recorded by the Committee is based on consideration of the entire material together with sociological, anthropological and ethnological perspectives which Mahadeo Kolis enjoy and of the OBC castes and sub-caste of the Kolis. The Additional Commissioner as well, has minutely gone into all the material details and found that when a Section of the society have started asserting themselves as tribes and try to earn the concession and facilities reserved for the Scheduled Tribes, the tricks are common and that, therefore, must be judged on legal and ethnological basis. Spurious tribes have become a threat to the genuine tribals and the present case is a typical example of reservation of benefits given to the genuine claimants have been snatched away by spurious tribes.” 24. He invites the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2008) 9 SCC 718 : LNIND 2008 SC 1705 wherein it is laid down as follows: “7. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents at length but he could not give any satisfactory reply why the caste register was called for inspection and the statements of the representatives of the office of the Tahsildar, Bombay were recorded after the conclusion of the hearing without any notice to the appellant. 8. In consonance with the principles of natural justice, equity, good conscience and fairness, we are compelled to set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Consequently, we remit the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the case afresh after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The Caste Scrutiny Committee must ensure that no hearing or deliberation takes place after the conclusion of hearing without notice to the appellant. 9. The matter has been pending for several years, therefore, we request the Caste Scrutiny Committee to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible. No further directions are necessary. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 25. 9. The matter has been pending for several years, therefore, we request the Caste Scrutiny Committee to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible. No further directions are necessary. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 25. He also seeks in aid of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Rajabhau v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2005) 11 SCC 540 wherein it is hereunder: “3. Counsel for the appellant submitted, relying upon certain annexures filed in this proceeding, that his cousin (father‘s brother‘s son) one Kishore Shivajirao Jadhav has been given the certificate of validity by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad certifying him to belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. He, therefore, submits that he is also entitled to such a certificate. 4. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the instant case, difficulties have arisen because the appellant chose not to represent his case before the Committee. 5. However, in view of the subsequent developments we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Scrutiny Committee and remit the matter to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad to reconsider the matter in the light of subsequent developments, including the fact that the paternal cousin of the appellant has been certified to belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he will appear before the Scrutiny Committee within a period of two weeks from today with an appropriate application whereafter the Committee will proceed with the matter. 7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 8. Weexpress no opinion on the merit of the claim.” 26. Apart from the above, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner cites the Division Bench decision of this Court in A. Thangapandian v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Another LNIND 2008 Mad 2482 wherein at paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 it is observed as follows: “3. The first document viz., Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C.) dated 16.7.1968 relates to the father of the petitioner, which issued by the District Educational Officer, Erode certifying that the father of the petitioner belonging to Mudugar Community. The second document viz., School Transfer Certificate dated 12.6.1968 also refers that the father of the petitioner belonged to Mudugar Community. The first document viz., Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C.) dated 16.7.1968 relates to the father of the petitioner, which issued by the District Educational Officer, Erode certifying that the father of the petitioner belonging to Mudugar Community. The second document viz., School Transfer Certificate dated 12.6.1968 also refers that the father of the petitioner belonged to Mudugar Community. The fourth document is an ancient document viz., 2(C) Patta issued in favour of G. Thirumalai Mudugar, the paternal grand father. The said document was issued in the year 1924 referring that the said Thirumalai is a person belonging to Mudugar Community. The sixth document, viz., extract from the Service Register of the petitioner‘s father by name Arumugam, who was employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, would portray that he belongs to Mudugar community. Despite production of all those documents before the Revenue Divisional Officer, none of the same was referred to in the impugned order displaying a total disregard to those documents. Further, in the impugned order, it is stated that the S.S.L.C. Book, School Transfer Certificate and Extract from the Service Register of the father of the petitioner are not proper documents to prove that the petitioner belonging to Mudugar Community, which is notified as Schedule Tribe Community. 4. We have heard Mr. R. Manikandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel representing on behalf of the first respondent and Ms. D. Geetha, Standing counsel for the second respondent. 5. We have considered the submissions of the respective counsel. In out opinion, the impugned order suffers from infirmity on the face of it and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. In matters of issue community certificate, of course, the competent authority is entitled to make a local verification to satisfy himself, as to whether the applicant belongs to a particular community or not. However, that cannot be the only test to find out the genuineness of the claim. In the event, a claim is made on the basis of the fact that the applicant‘s father was issued with a community certificate certifying himself belonging to Schedule Tribe Community and that when the certificate is not assailed in the manner known to law, such document would be a valid document for the concerned authority to rely upon and issue a community certificate. Equally, the ancient documents that too three documents, which came into existence much prior to the independence of India, could be considered to be the genuine documents and if those documents refer the community of the individual concerning, it would certainly be the valid piece of evidence for issuance of community certificate. On the facts, there is no dispute that the petitioner has produced S.S.L.C. Book, School Transfer Certificate and Extract from the Service Register belonging to his father, which came into existence during the year 1968 itself. We do not find any reason, as to why those documents have been discarded and rejected, while the application for issuance of community certificate was considered. Moreover, the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has not even cared to refer to those documents showing his bent of mind in not issuing the community certificate. The question as to whether the service records, S.S.L.C. Book and School Transfer Certificate of the father of the petitioner and the connected records could be the basis for issuance of community certificate was in fact considered by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Sumit Anand (2005) 12 SCC 248 and the Apex Court was not ‘inclined to interfere with order of the High Court directing the authority for issuance of community certificate on the basis of such documents. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and as there is no dispute as to the documents, which were produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer at the time of enquiry, evidencing the community of the father of the petitioner as Mudugar Community coupled with the ancient document of the year 1924, we are of the considered view, that it is a fit case, where a positive direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer can be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to issue the community certificate to the petitioner certifying himself belonging to Mudugar Community.” 27. In the Official Memorandum of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 6/4/66-Estt. (C) dated 11.5.1966 sent to all Ministries etc. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to issue the community certificate to the petitioner certifying himself belonging to Mudugar Community.” 27. In the Official Memorandum of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 6/4/66-Estt. (C) dated 11.5.1966 sent to all Ministries etc. on the subject of Reservation in services for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Brochure as regards the list of authorities empowered to issue certificates of verification, it is among other things mentioned that ‘it has been decided that in entry 1 of the aforesaid Appendix (Appendix 16 of the Brochure regarding reservations in services for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued with the Ministry‘s Office Memorandum No. 1/2/61-SCT(I) dated 27.4.1962), after “1st Class Stipendiary Magistrate” “City Magistrate” may be added as one of the authorities empowered to issue certificates to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.‘ 28. A perusal of xerox copy of Sale Deed dated 19.10.1974 (Document No. 2055/1974) shows that it has been executed in favour of 1. Krishnasamy Reddiar S/o.VA. Subba Reddiar, 2. Sundararajan S/o. Muthusamy Reddiar, Konda Reddies Community, Agriculture occupation by V.M. Subba Reddy S/o. Muthusamy Reddiar residing at Seelathikulam Village, Kumbikulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk. The said Sale Deed is in respect of 74 cents in Survey No. 760/1A and 1/3rd Share in 142 cents comprised in Survey No. 760/2 of Kumbikulam Village, Sub Registration District of Radhapuram. The Market value of the property is Rs. 305/-. 29. Further, it transpires from the xerox copy of Sale Deed dated 29.1.1975 (Document No. 198/1975) shows that the same has been executed in favour of Subba Reddy S/o. M. Muthusamy Reddy, Konda Reddy Community, Agriculture occupation by Narayanasamy Reddy and Muthusamy Reddy sons of T. Subba Reddiar residing at Seelathikulam, Kumbikulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk. The said Sale Deed pertains to the Vendors Share of 48 cents each totalling 96 cents comprised in Survey No. 746/2, Kumbikulam Village within the Sub Registration District, Radhapuram. The Market Value of the property is Rs. 200/-. 30. The xerox copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.4.1975 (Document No. 706/1975) is in favour of Subba Reddy S/o. V. Muthusamy Reddy, Konda Reddias Community, Agriculture Occupation, by M. Sundararajan S/o. T. Muthusamy Reddiar residing at Seelathikulam, Kumbikulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk. The Market Value of the property is Rs. 200/-. 30. The xerox copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.4.1975 (Document No. 706/1975) is in favour of Subba Reddy S/o. V. Muthusamy Reddy, Konda Reddias Community, Agriculture Occupation, by M. Sundararajan S/o. T. Muthusamy Reddiar residing at Seelathikulam, Kumbikulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk. An extent of 159½ Cents out of 638 cents comprised in Survey No. 488/2 Kasthurirengapuram Village, Radhapuram Sub Registration District has been sold for the Market value of property amounting to Rs. 480/-. 31. On1.7.1980, the Additional Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Nanguneri has issued a Community Certificate to the petitioner stating that he belongs to Hindu Konda Reddi Community which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. 32. 1n G.O. Ms. No. 1139, Social Welfare Department, dated 23.3.1982 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, it is inter alia stated that ‘With a view to prevent the issue of wrong community certificates Government after careful consideration direct that in order to ensure that the issue of community certificates to persons enquiring certificates as belonging to Konda Reddi a Scheduled Tribe Community is done with care and caution, the powers for issue of community certificates to the above persons will be vested only-with the Revenue Divisional Officers hereafter instead of Tahsildars who shall observe the following criteria as proof of belonging to the said community, (i) Production of sale deeds other documents where evidence is available that he/she belongs to the Konda Reddi Community (ii) Relatives of those who have produced evidence mentioned in item (i) above. Further Government order that Officers issuing false community certificates will be liable for disciplinary action.‘ 33. In G.O. Ms. No. 9, Social Welfare Department, dated 3.1.1983 the Government of Tamil Nadu has stated the following: “In the circumstances stated in para 1 above, the Government direct that the powers for issue of community certificate in respect of Kondareddis community shall continue to be vested with the Revenue Divisional Officers. The Government also direct that the production of documentary evidence such as sale deeds referred to in sub-paras (i) and (ii) of para 2 of the Government Order read above need not be insisted upon and that the community certificate may be issued after due local enquiry to the satisfaction of the enquiring officer that the claim of the applicant that he/ she belongs to Kondareddis Community is correct. The Government also direct that records of such local enquiry in such case may be maintained as a permanent record for verification, if any, in future.” 34. In regard to the issuance of Community Certificate to the petitioner by the then District Judge, Tirunelveli (who held the charge) during the period from 6.12.1982 to 3.12.1984 for Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, I/c. Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City as in his Communication No. 02/2520/97 dated 10.3.1998 with a copy being marked to the District Collector, Tirunelveli has stated that ‘the officer who seems to have issued the certificate can alone speak to the genuineness of the certificate and the Court is not in a position to observe and speak anything about the certificate and further, the Court authorities ha‘ve not informed the present place of working of Tr.CP.Singaram District Judge and the result of the enquiry is that ‘no such community certificate was issued from the Court of District Judge, Tirunelveli.‘ 35. The petitioner has furnished a Community Certificate of his relative S. Vasudevan dated 26.11.1975 issued by the Sub Collector, Kovilpatti which indicates that the said Vasudevan belongs to KONDA REDDIS caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Lists) Modification Order, 1956 etc. 36. The petitioner furnished a Certificate of Permanent Residence issued by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Radhapuram dated 5.3.1992 stating that he is a resident in Kumpikuiam Village, Radhapuram Taluk Tirunelveli Kattabomman District in Tamil Nadu. 37. The petitioner has furnished a Community Certificate of V. Siva Gowri Sankar S/o. Thiru S. Vasudevan of Ahilandapuram Village/Town Kovilpatti Taluk Chidambaranar District of the State of Tamil Nadu which refers to the fact that his relative belongs to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe as per G.O. Ms. No. 1773 S.W Dated 23.6.1981/The S.C. and ST. Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Sl. No. 12. 38. In another Community Certificate of one V. Venkatesh Mathan Kumar S/o. Thiru. S. Vasudevan of Ahilandapuram Village/town Kovilpatti Taluk, the community of his relative is mentioned as that he belongs to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe as per G.O. Ms. No. 1773 S.W Dated 23.6.1981/The S.C. and S.T. Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Sl. No. 12. 39. S. Vasudevan of Ahilandapuram Village/town Kovilpatti Taluk, the community of his relative is mentioned as that he belongs to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe as per G.O. Ms. No. 1773 S.W Dated 23.6.1981/The S.C. and S.T. Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Sl. No. 12. 39. Even though the petitioner has taken pleas in the grounds of the writ petition that the respondent has not furnished a copy of the Anthropologist Report to him and further that he is unaware of the said Anthropologist Report and also that the said Anthropologist has not conducted any examination or enquiry as claimed in the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 29.1.2009. Therefore, the pivotal contention of the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice have not been adhered to by the 1st respondent and therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.1.2009 is a non-est and nullity in the eye of law. 40. According to LORD ESHER M.R. in Voinet v. Barrett (1885) 55 L.J.Q.B. 39 at page 41 it is observed that ‘Natural justice - that is ... the natural sense of what is right and wrong.‘ The term ‘Natural Justice‘ in the past has been interchangeably employed with the expressions ‘natural law‘, ‘natural equity‘, ‘eternal law‘, ‘the laws of God‘, ‘summum jus‘ and other similar expressions. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Chancellor of Cambridge (1723) Fortescue 202 the expression ‘natural justice‘ has been used in the pleadings and the expression ‘law of nature‘ in the note of the judgment, in relation to the same principle. It is still occasionally used as a synonym for natural law‘ (by BRETT M.R. In Burtonv. English (1883) 49 L.T. 768, 769). 41. The term ‘Natural Justice‘ is an antithesis of arbitrariness. The non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Natural Justice is a concept, and therefore, its principles are not the edicts of a statute. In short, the rules of natural justice do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it. Indeed, the rules of natural justice are embodied rules. 42. The non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Natural Justice is a concept, and therefore, its principles are not the edicts of a statute. In short, the rules of natural justice do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it. Indeed, the rules of natural justice are embodied rules. 42. This Court worth recalls the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Nagar Palika, Nataur v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Others (1998) 2 SCC 400 : 1998-II-LLJ-287 : LNIND 1997 SC 1377 wherein in paragraph 3 it is held hereunder at p. 289 of LLJ: “Instead of remanding the matter to the Tribunal for decision on merit, the High Court, however, has relied upon observations made by the Tribunal and has come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal is illegal. It has set aside the order of dismissal. The observations on which the High Court has relied are to the effect that no enquiry at all was held in this case and no opportunity to inspect the record was given to the second respondent. The Tribunal has also observed that no copy of the Enquiry Report was sent along with the show-cause notice and hence there was no proper enquiry. These observations of the Tribunal have failed to take into account the fact that despite repeated reminders spreading over a number of years, the second respondent failed to give any reply to the charge-sheet which was served upon him. It also failed to take into account the fact that although the second respondent was asked to inspect the record, he did not inspect the record. It was because qf this failure on the part of the second respondent to reply to the charge-sheet or to appear before the Enquiry Officer that the charges were held proved by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the material which was available before him. This cannot be considered as a negation of the principles of natural justice. The fact that the copy of the Enquiry Report was not given to the second respondent will not vitiate the proceedings, in view of the decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1994-I-LLJ-162 .” 43. This cannot be considered as a negation of the principles of natural justice. The fact that the copy of the Enquiry Report was not given to the second respondent will not vitiate the proceedings, in view of the decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1994-I-LLJ-162 .” 43. It is to be noted that nothing unfair can be infringed by not affording an opportunity to present or made the case. Natural Justice may provide the best rubric for it, since the giving 6f reasons is required by ordinary man‘s sense of justice (vide WADE on Administrative law 6th Edition page 548). 44. This Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882 : 1958-II-LLJ-259 wherein it is observed that ‘... the rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no material should be relied on against him without his being given any opportunity of explaining them.‘ 45. In the decision in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 555 : (1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986-I-LLJ-36 : LNIND 1985 SC 283, it is held that ‘the principles of natural justice must be confined within their proper limits and not allowed to run wild. The concept of natural justice is a magnificent thoroughbred on which this nation gallops forward towards its proclaimed and destined goal of “justice, social, economic and political”.‘ 46. 1n Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 : (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985-II-LLJ-279 it is held that ‘Not only can the principles of natural justice be modified but in exceptional cases they can even be excluded. There are well-defined exceptions to the nemo judex in causa sua rule as also to the audi alteram partem rule. The nemo judex in causa sua rule is subject to the doctrine of necessity and yields to it. There are well-defined exceptions to the nemo judex in causa sua rule as also to the audi alteram partem rule. The nemo judex in causa sua rule is subject to the doctrine of necessity and yields to it. So far as the audi alteram partem rule is concerned, both in England and in India, it is well established that where a right to a prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action, such a right can be excluded. This right can also be excluded where the nature of the action to be taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrant its exclusion; nor can the audi alteram partem rule be invoked if importing it would have the effect of paralysing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands.‘ 47. InK.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India AIR 1984 SC 273 : (1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984-I-LLJ-2 it is held that ‘The ingredients of the principles of natural justice are that the aggrieved party must be given all fairness, fair plays and reasonable opportunity in the administrative enquiry. The delinquent officer cannot challenge the validity of the action of the judicial or quasi-judicial authority in the writ unless he challenges those circumstances which have deprived him to exercise his rights and facilities under the principles of natural justice. Mere non-observance of formalities by way of just explanation does not make the enquiry prejudicial.‘ 48. In S. Govindaraju v. K.S.R.T.C. AIR 1986 SC 1680 : (1986) 3 SCC 273 : 1986-II- LLJ-351 : LNIND 1986 SC 125 it is laid down that ‘Giving an opportunity of explanation would meet the bare minimal requirement of natural justice. Before the services of an employee are terminated, resulting in forfeiture of his right to be considered for employment, opportunity of explanation must be afforded to the employee concerned.‘ 49. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma AIR 1996 SC 1669 : (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996-II-LLJ-296 it is held that ‘Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise etc.‘ 50. Although the petitioner has produced the xerox copies of Sale Deeds dated 19.10.1974, 29.1.1975 and 15.4.1975, in these documents, the term ‘Reddiar‘ is found suffixed with his relatives names. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi has been placed before the 1st respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee and also the Anthropologist report was also produced to show that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy Community. 51. In the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the xerox copy of petitioner‘s S.S.L.C. Certificate shows that the petitioner belongs to ‘Reddiar‘ Community. His father has signed the declaration in the first page of S.S.L.C. Book. 52. Before the 1st respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner produced only the xerox copy of caste certificates issued to him and the xerox copies of Sale Deeds. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the original of his S.S.L.C. Book and in his statement, he has stated that the said book has been misplaced and as such, he is not in a position to furnish the same. 53. The Collector of Tirunelveli, Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli in his letter dated 18.2.1997 in R.Dis.7792/97 addressed to the petitioner‘s senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Tirunelveli has stated that as per his Office Letter R.Dis.(B4) 2751/95, dated 4.11.1996 it has been informed that the certificate dated 1.7.1980 (Community Certificate in favour of the petitioner) has not been issued by the Taluk Office, Nanguneri etc. 54. The 2nd respondent, in its counter in para 9, has, among other things, specifically averred that ‘The 1st respondent has gone through all the documents relied on by the petitioner, including the documents stated in the affidavit and also the voluminous book containing 430 pages and has come to the conclusion that he does not belong to Konda Reddy Community.‘ 55. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the petitioner inspite of being provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to prove his claim that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community, has not produced the Original School Records and the Community Certificates which he relied upon before the 1st respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee. When the petitioner has not availed of the opportunity to establish his case that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community (notwithstanding the fact that he has been provided with adequate opportunities), then, he cannot be heard to take a plea that the rules of natural justice have been violated by the 1st respondent/Committee. Even though, the petitioner has pleaded that the non-furnishing of copy of the Anthropologist Report to him, has caused prejudice to him, this Court is of the considered view that when he has not availed the repeated opportunity provided to him to prove his case, by means of production of School Records and Community Certificates to the fact that he belongs to a Konda Reddy Community, then, the non-furnishing of Anthropologist Report has not caused any prejudice to him, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 56. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not established his case that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community and as such, the writ petition filed by him lacks merits and consequently, the writ petition fails. 57. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The impugned order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. 39940/CVII/2007 dated 29.1.2009 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this writ petition. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.