Judgment :- (D. Murugesan, J) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court questioning the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee cancelling the Community Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.06.1989. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father was issued with "Konda Reddis' Community Certificate dated 20.09.1965 by the Tahsildar, Bhavani District. A similar certificate was also issued in favour of his sister on 18.06.1982 by the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam- Perambur, Chennai. 3. On an earlier occasion, the certificate of the petitioner was sought to be verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which by order dated 10.05.2010 cancelled the said certificate and that order was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.10839 of 2010. This court having noticed that similar certificate has been issued in favour of the father and sister of the petitioner, the same had not been considered and so long as those certificates are not cancelled, the petitioner would be entitled to the certificate as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in C.K.Kalaivannan VS The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, Salem District reported in 2010 3 CTC 673 , which, in turn, was on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar VS Sumit Anand reported in 2005 (12) SCC 248 . 4. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that inspite of such a direction by the Division Bench to the respondent to reconsider the entire issue on the basis of the above two judgments, more or less a similar order has been passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. We have perused the impugned order. 6. While considering the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the State Level Scrutiny Committee had observed that even the father's Community Certificate of the petitioner is not beyond doubt and the grand father of the petitioner has given the community of the father of the petitioner in the school records as 'Konda Reddis' community in the year 1950. Therefore, the certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. 7. Therefore, the certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. 7. In our opinion, the said approach of the State level Scrutiny Committee is not in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court must be read to mean that when the father was issued with a Community Certificate, the children should also have the same status and thereby, they are entitled to similar certificate of their father. Merely because the grand father has intimated the school authorities a different community, that will not invalidate the certificate issued by the competent authority subsequently, so long as that certificate is not cancelled. The fact remains, in this case, is both the certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father and his sister, have not been cancelled so far. In that sense, when the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner is sought to be verified, the Committee cannot ignore the certificates issued in favour of the father and sister of the petitioner. We have to add that it does not mean that the authorities are not empowered to verify the genuineness of these certificates as well. Hence, before rejecting to place reliance on the certificates of the petitioner's father and sister, the authorities should have taken steps to verify those certificates at first by giving due opportunities to them. In the event, the Committee comes to the conclusion that those certificates are not genuine, they need not place reliance on those certificates in the first place of verification of the Community Certificate of the petitioner herein. When that procedure being adopted, the Committee cannot ignore the certificates already issued to the father and sister of the petitioner by the authorities who are competent to issue such certificates. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's grievance must be considered and the writ petition must be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. In the event, the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father and sister is not cancelled, the petitioner would be entitled to similar certificate. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. In the event, the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father and sister is not cancelled, the petitioner would be entitled to similar certificate. That does not mean that the Committee is not empowered to go into the genuineness of the certificates issued in favour of the father and sister of the petitioner. But in the event, the Committee is of the opinion that those Certificates must be verified, it must be done after due notice to them as well.