ORDER 1. The writ petitioner has come before this Court challenging the order of the first respondent herein, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner that he be declared as belonging to Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe. 2. The petitioner is a practising advocate of District Court and Subordinate Courts around Coimbatore. The petitioner’s father served in the Indian Railways from 1958 to 1989. He died in harness while serving as Chief Travelling Ticketing Inspector. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner’s father joined the Indian Railways under the quota of Scheduled Tribe as belonging to Hindu Kattu Naicken community. The petitioner’s father’s status was also certified in the proceedings of the Station Superintendent, Madurai Division, dated 1.6.1977, based on the records available in the Office vide No.U/P 509/VI/1507 dated 31.8.1962. It is stated that along with the petitioner, there were other siblings by name Kalaiselvan, Kayalvizhi, Malarvizhi and Karthikeyan and as of today, Karthikeyan is no more. 4. The school certificate issued to Kalaiselvan clearly pointed out to his community as Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe. So too the other siblings. It is stated that the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe and was selected in the qualifying examination. However, the results of the petitioner were withheld for the verification of the community certificate. The fourth respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission referred the matter to the District Collector to verify the community certificate and send a report. However, the District Vigilance Committee stated that they had received a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer suggesting cancellation of the community certificate issued to the petitioner. Based on this, an order of cancellation was made on 25.12.2004. The petitioner sought for quashing of this order in W.P. No. 3125 of 2005. By order dated 28.10.2005, this Court held that the validity of the community certificate had to be decided by the three member committee and there could be no cancellation of the community certificate, automatically by the District Vigilance Committee. In the circumstances, this Court directed the verification of the community certificate of the petitioner to the District Vigilance Committee as well as to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul Division, on an out-of-turn basis and complete the same as early as possible, within a period of three months. In the circumstances, this Court directed the verification of the community certificate of the petitioner to the District Vigilance Committee as well as to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul Division, on an out-of-turn basis and complete the same as early as possible, within a period of three months. This Court directed a post to be kept vacant till the completion of enquiry relating to the community certificate. 5. Consequent on the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 28.10.2005 in W.P. No. 3152 of 2005, the petitioner sought for issuance of a community certificate based on the petitioner’s father’s service records, authentication of the petitioner’s father’s community certificate endorsed by the Railway Station Superintendent, Madurai Division, community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul to the petitioner’s elder brother Karthikeyan, community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Taluk Tahsildar, the petitioner’s S.S.L.C. Book showing the petitioner’s elder brother’s community as Hindu Kattu Naicken, the communication of the Taluk Tahsildar to Revenue Inspector, Dindigul South Taluk, to make enquiries into his community status, the representation made by the petitioner, the community certificate issued to the petitioner’s elder brother, school certificate and transfer certificate issued to the petitioner by the Government Law College, the transfer certificate of the petitioner’s elder brother Karthikeyan (since deceased), etc. 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on enquiry, however, passed an order dated 6.2.2006, thereby making a report to the Collector that the petitioner did not belong to Kattu Naicken community. A perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 6.2.2006 shows that an enquiry was made not only with the petitioner’s mother, but also with the petitioner’s uncle’s wife (petitioner’s father’s late brother’s wife) and their heirs, apart from the Village Administrative Officer, Sirumalai Village. 7. The petitioner filed an application before the District Vigilance Committee, objecting to the field enquiry made, particularly in the context of the reliance placed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the petitioner’s uncle’s wife. Aggrieved by the order of the District Vigilance Committee, the petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 7. The petitioner filed an application before the District Vigilance Committee, objecting to the field enquiry made, particularly in the context of the reliance placed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the petitioner’s uncle’s wife. Aggrieved by the order of the District Vigilance Committee, the petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. A perusal of the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee shows that it placed much emphasis on the enquiry made by the Revenue Divisional Officer with the petitioner’s father’s brother’s wife and absolutely no credence was given to the certificate issued by the Railway Administration, certifying the petitioner’s father as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The State Level Scrutiny Committee pointed out that the petitioner had not produced evidence to prove his community status as Kattu Naicken – Scheduled Tribe. The State Forum pointed out that none of the relatives of Senthil Kumar were living in Balakrishnapuram and there was no family belonging to Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe, now living in Balakrishnapuram. The Village Administrative Officer, Balakrishnapuram, in his deposition, stated that the petitioner’s father was living in Sirumalai Village, having lands therein, which was subsequently transferred to Kayalvizhi and his other children in a joint patta. The school certificates issued to Kalaiselvan and Karthikeyan, brothers of the petitioner, were all self-created and hence, no reliance could be placed on them. The certificate issued to Kayalvizhi was by the Tahsildar, who was not authorised to issue any such certificate. Thus, the certificates relied on by the petitioner were rejected. 8. As far as the certificate issued to the father is concerned, the State Level Scrutiny Committee pointed out that the petitioner had not produced the S.S.L.C. Certificate and the transfer certificate of the father who joined the Railway Administration in 1958. The corroborative evidence of the enquiry report showed the statement of one Chandrasekaran, elder brother of the petitioner’s father, that they belonged to Kavara Naidu community and not Hindu Kattu Naicken community. In the circumstances, the State Level Scrutiny Committee cancelled the community certificate issued to the petitioner and held that he did not belong to the Hindu Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in W.P. No. 25235 of 2009. 9. In the circumstances, the State Level Scrutiny Committee cancelled the community certificate issued to the petitioner and held that he did not belong to the Hindu Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in W.P. No. 25235 of 2009. 9. On notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit, contending that the petitioner was not justified in contending that the order was passed without considering the representation made by the petitioner, that too after having given an opportunity to the petitioner on the various enquiries made. Based on the enquiry, the certificate issued to the petitioner was ordered to be withdrawn. In the circumstances, in the absence of relevant documents, namely, the community certificate of the petitioner’s father and the petitioner’s siblings placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, no exception could be taken to the proceedings taken. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the consistent case of the petitioner was that the petitioner’s father belonged to the Kattu Naicken community which is a Scheduled Tribe community and the certificate had been issued by the statutory authority based on the records available regarding the service of the petitioner’s father. Thus, the respondents committed a serious error in placing reliance on the statement of the petitioner’s uncle’s wife and others, which have no relevance for the purpose of this case. He further pointed out that the S.S.L.C. certificate of the brothers and sister of the petitioner have evidentiary value, which could not be ignored by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, if the respondents had any doubt regarding the community of the petitioner, nothing prevented the authorities concerned from making reference to the Vigilance Cell for making further investigation into the social status of the petitioner. In any event, learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner’s father’s certificate shows his community as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, which was not questioned by the Authorities, it is incorrect to deny the status of Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner. 11. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader supported the impugned order and submitted that the same was passed after a thorough investigation and hence, no exception could be taken to the order passed. 12. 11. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader supported the impugned order and submitted that the same was passed after a thorough investigation and hence, no exception could be taken to the order passed. 12. As already narrated in the preceding paragraph, the petitioner claimed himself as belonging to Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe community and in support of his contention, the petitioner placed reliance on the community certificate issued by the Railway Administration to his father, dated 1.6.1977. A copy of the community certificate as contained in the typed set of papers filed before this Court shows that it was issued by the Station Superintendent, Madurai Division, based on the particulars available in the service register of the petitioner’s father. The respondents did not dispute the genuineness of the certificate issued. If they had had any doubt regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued, nothing prevented the authorities from enquiring the Station Superintendent as regards the records available as well as the details given as to the petitioner’s father’s community. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner’s brother’s Higher Secondary Certificate indicated the candidate’s caste as Kattu Naicken, which was also signed by the petitioner’s father. A perusal of the statement given by the petitioner’s mother and siblings was that they belonged to Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, and the petitioner’s siblings were also issued similar certificates based on the enquiry made. 13. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, however, seems to have placed much emphasis on the non-production of the certificate issued to the petitioner’s father. We do not understand how this could be a relevant factor for denying the claim of the petitioner, particularly in the face of the certificate already produced from the Station Superintendent, Madurai Division, indicating the petitioner’s father’s community as Kattu Naicken community. When the said document remains unchallenged and so too the S.S.L.C. certificate of the petitioner’s sister and the deceased brother not being questioned, we do not find any justifiable ground to uphold the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 14. It is seen from paragraph 21(k) of the impugned order that the State Level Scrutiny Committee rejected the certificate issued to Kalaiselvan and Karthikeyan as self-created documents. Except for a mere statement that they are unreliable, the reasoning for the same was not indicated in the said order. 14. It is seen from paragraph 21(k) of the impugned order that the State Level Scrutiny Committee rejected the certificate issued to Kalaiselvan and Karthikeyan as self-created documents. Except for a mere statement that they are unreliable, the reasoning for the same was not indicated in the said order. There are hardly any material shown as to whether any enquiry was made as regards the documents, particularly with reference to the S.S.L.C. certificates issued to Kalaiselvan and Karthikeyan, which were signed by the competent Authority. In paragraph 24 of the order, the State Level Scrutiny Committee had referred to the enquiry made by the Revenue Divisional Officer that there was no evidence as to the issuance of community certificate to the petitioner’s father. In so holding, we do not find any reference at all by the State Level Scrutiny Committee to the certificate issued by the Railway Administration, which had given employment to the petitioner’s father, as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Thus, when the petitioner had placed a vital document, particularly the certificate issued by the Railway Administration, indicating the community of the petitioner’s father, the reliance placed on the petitioner’s father’s brother’s wife as belonging to a different community is totally misplaced and can have no relevance at all in determining the petitioner’s community as belonging to Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe. 15. Learned Government Pleader submitted that considering the judgment of this Court S. Saraswathy v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department 2012 (2) CTC 580 : LNIND 2012 MAD 6 , the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for making further enquiry through the Vigilance Officer. We do not find this course is necessary, in the face of the certificate already available indicating the petitioner’s father as belonging to Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe, the certificate having been issued by the Railway Administration based on the records available. 16. The observation made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had obtained community certificate as belonging to Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, without any basic record, is totally unsustainable in the face of the documents placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 16. The observation made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had obtained community certificate as belonging to Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, without any basic record, is totally unsustainable in the face of the documents placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and thereby allowing the writ petition, holding that the certificate issued to the petitioner as belonging to Kattu Naicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, is a valid certificate. Consequently, the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee is set aside and W.P. No. 25235 of 2009 is allowed. In the circumstances, the third respondent in W.P. No. 25235 of 2009 is directed to validate the community certificate issued to the petitioner as belonging to Kattu Naicken Community without any further delay in this regard. 17. W.P. No. 5471 of 2010 is filed by the brother of the petitioner in W.P. No. 25235 of 2010. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 5.11.2008 passed by the senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Madurai Division, Madurai and to quash the order of the first respondent, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, dated 5.11.2008, holding the community of the petitioner as not belonging to Kattu Naicken – Scheduled Tribe. 18. It is seen from the order passed herein by the first respondent that it is a reflection of the order challenged in W.P. No. 25235 of 2010. Since W.P. No. 25235 of 2010 is allowed, thereby allowing the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Hindu Kattu Naicken community – Scheduled Tribe, the order passed by the first respondent herein merits to be quashed. Consequently, the order passed by the sixth respondent also stands quashed. 19. The petitioner had contended that the order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner herein and that he was not a party to the enquiry relating to the order dated 5.11.2008; except Leela alias Thamaraikan, other witnesses had expressed behind the petitioner’s back. There were no materials to hold that his mother’s statement was incorrect. 19. The petitioner had contended that the order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner herein and that he was not a party to the enquiry relating to the order dated 5.11.2008; except Leela alias Thamaraikan, other witnesses had expressed behind the petitioner’s back. There were no materials to hold that his mother’s statement was incorrect. The documents relied on by the petitioner, viz., the father’s community details as found in the certificate issued by the Station Superintendent, Madurai Division, was based on the service records of the petitioner’s father, who entered into the Railway service as early as 17.5.1958; that the father’s community certificate was confirmed in the Madurai Collector’s proceedings in L Dis. No. 1004/VY/62/21-2-63. Further, the District Committed had ignored the petitioner’s brother’s and sister’s school certificates, indicating their community as Scheduled Tribe. In the result, both these writ petitions stand allowed. Connected M.P. No. 2 of 2010 stands closed. No costs. Petition allowed.