Hrishikesh Roy, J.:- 1. Heard Mr. M Nath, learned counsel ap­pearing for the petitioner. The Assam State Co-operative Housing Finance Ltd. (herein­after referred to as 'the HOUSEFED') au­thorities (respondent Nos.4 -- 6) are represented by Advocate Mr. B Chakraborty. The Govt. Advocate Ms. K Devi appears for the State respondent Nos. 1 -- 3. 2. The petitioner is serving as a Supervi­sor in the HOUSEFED since 11.11.1994 and although multiple reliefs are sought in the writ petition, in course of hearing, the only prayer made is for consideration of promotion of the petitioner, to the post of L.D.A. 3. Representing the petitioner, Mr. M Nath, learned counsel refers to the direction given on 28.2.2005 (Annexure-9) in the WP(C) No.9167/2005 to project that by now the promotion should have been con­sidered by considering the petitioner's ser­vice seniority, but despite the Court's direc­tion in the earlier round, the HOUSEFED authorities have deferred consideration through the impugned resolution of 4.7.2006 (page 58), until receipt of Govt. confirmation on the tribal status of the petitioner. 4. It may be noted that although the peti­tioner takes the tribal surname 'Khersa', his father is Dr. Harendra Nath Gogoi is a non-tribal and belongs to the OBC category. But the petitioner's mother Nilota Khersa belongs to the Dimasa Kachari community, which is recognized as a ST(H) community in Assam and claiming lineage through his mother, the petitioner secured a ST(H) certificate on 27.9.1988 (Annexure-1). 5. Since he was understood to have en­tered service through misrepresentation of his tribal status, the petitioner's claim for promotion was initially kept pending by the Man­aging Director, HOUSEFED through his or­der dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-11) for veri­fication of the social status of the petitioner. Thereafter the District Scrutiny Committee constituted through the Govt. Notification of 5.10.2003 scrutinized the social status of about 105 persons and this Committee which met on 12.9.2005, declared the petitioner's ST certificate to be' genuine'. Accordingly the HOUSEFED authorities were expected to consider promotion by considering the peti­tioner too as a ST(H) category person. 6. But it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the HOUSEFED that earlier the EAC, Kamrup (R) scrutinized the petitioner's tribal status. In this exercise where the peti­tioner was afforded hearing, the inquiry officer found that the petitioner stayed at Guwahat in Kamrup (Metropolitan) District and was brought up by his doctor father Dr. Harendra Nath Gogoi, who himself is a non-tribal (OBC). In this exercise where the peti­tioner was afforded hearing, the inquiry officer found that the petitioner stayed at Guwahat in Kamrup (Metropolitan) District and was brought up by his doctor father Dr. Harendra Nath Gogoi, who himself is a non-tribal (OBC). Therefore it was held that the petitioner is disentitled to claim the mother's tribal status. 7. However Advocate Mr. M Nath sub­mits that the District Scrutiny Committee con­stituted through the Govt. Notification dated 5.10.2003 had re-affirmed the petitioner to be member of the ST(H) category and on this basis it is argued that the petitioner be con­sidered for promotion as was earlier directed by this Court in the WP(C) No.9167/2005. The counsel submits further that since he did not join service as a tribal category person, the promotion can be considered as a Gen­eral Category candidate. 8. On behalf of the HOUSEFED authori­ties, Advocate Mr. B Chakraborty projects that ordinarily there may not be any difficulty to consider promotion by treating the peti­tioner as a General Category candidate. But here the petitioner deceived his employer by hiding his father's name in his application form and falsely mentioning the name of Nilu Khersa against the father's column in the ap­plication. Therefore the HOUSEFED authori­ties wanted to start a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It is also projected that the correct name of the petitioner's mother is 'Nilota' but he deliberately mentioned the abbreviated name 'Nilu' only because, the shortened name 'Nilu' connotes the neutral gender. Because of this mischief, the employer wrongly understood "Nilu Khersa" to be the applicant's father. For furnishing such mislead­ing information in the relevant column of the application on 24.8.1994, which was the ba­sis for the appointment order dated 11.11.1994, the employer wanted to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the wrongdoer but this Court in the Misc. Case No. 2260/2008 de­clared that this prayer of the employer for leave to initiate departmental action will be consid­ered at the stage of hearing. Accordingly Mr. Chakraborty now prays for the liberty to pro­ceed against the petitioner. 9. Representing the State Authorities, Ms. K Devi concedes that there are contrary find­ings by the EAC and the District Scrutiny Committee on the tribal status claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly Mr. Chakraborty now prays for the liberty to pro­ceed against the petitioner. 9. Representing the State Authorities, Ms. K Devi concedes that there are contrary find­ings by the EAC and the District Scrutiny Committee on the tribal status claimed by the petitioner. But she highlights that while adverse report of the EAC was given-after affording hearing to the petitioner, the contrary report of the District Scrutiny Committee fails to dis­close the basis on which, the petitioner's claim was declared to be 'genuine'. 10. On the pleaded case, the issue that arises for determination of the Court is whether the petitioner despite his father be­ing a non-tribal is entitled to be treated as a member of the ST(H) category on the basis of his mother's tribal status. To answer this issue, it may now be appropriate to take note of the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Com­missioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 ; Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 and Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 257 . 11. When a non tribal undeservedly makes claim through ST certificate, it has the affect of depriving the genuine tribals, the reserva­tion benefits conferred on them by the Con­stitution. Therefore in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), the Apex Court directed verification of the social status certificate by a commit­tee. Who should be the members of this Com­mittee, the rank and designation of the Committee members were specified by the Su­preme Court and no other Committee is com­petent to evaluate the evidence and record findings on the social status certificate, when the claim is questioned for an individual. 12. In Valsamma Paul (supra), the Su­preme Court was dealing with a situation where a forward class lady had married a backward class Latin Christian and claimed the benefit of reservation. Here the Apex Court declared that when a person gets trans­planted to a reserved category, benefit of res­ervation can only be claimed, when it is demonstrated that the transplanted person suffered the same disability, disadvantage, indignities or sufferings. But a candidate who had the advantages of forward community does not become eligible for benefit of reservation by mere transplantation. Here the Apex Court declared that when a person gets trans­planted to a reserved category, benefit of res­ervation can only be claimed, when it is demonstrated that the transplanted person suffered the same disability, disadvantage, indignities or sufferings. But a candidate who had the advantages of forward community does not become eligible for benefit of reservation by mere transplantation. Similarly while consid­ering the claim of an offspring born through the marriage of a ST(P) mother and a for­ward caste father, the Apex Court held that children of tribal woman, married to a non-tribal husband can't claim the benefit of tribal status, if the child has not suffered any dis­ability and was brought up in an environment of a forward community. 13. In the case in hand, although one Com­mittee has held the petitioner's tribal status to be a 'genuine', there is nothing on record to indicate the basis of the said finding by the District Scrutiny Committee. But in the verifi­cation made by the Kamrup EAC, the petitioner's background was taken into ac­count and it was clearly indicated that his fa­ther is non-tribal and the offspring was brought up in a non-disadvantageous environment at Guwahati. 14. But what is of greater relevance is that the Supreme Court expected verification of social status of a doubtful claimant through a specific Committee, constituted by specified ranking officers. Here the District Scrutiny Committee which gave its finding was not the authorized Committee. Therefore the favour­able finding given by the District Scrutiny Committee constituted through Govt. Notifi­cation dated 5.10.2003, does not have any legal validity and can't be conclusive on the petitioner's tribal status. Undoubtedly the petitioner's father is a non-tribal and he was a serving Professor in the medical college at Guwahati. The petitioner was educated in a premier school and brought up in an advan­tageous metropolitan environment in Guwa­hati city and was not subjected to any dis­ability. In this circumstance, I am of the view that petitioner's promotion shouldn't be con­sidered by treating him as a tribal category person. But his promotion as a general cat­egory person is certainly permissible as was directed through the Court's order dated 28.2.2005 in WP(C) No.9167/2005. 15. In this circumstance, I am of the view that petitioner's promotion shouldn't be con­sidered by treating him as a tribal category person. But his promotion as a general cat­egory person is certainly permissible as was directed through the Court's order dated 28.2.2005 in WP(C) No.9167/2005. 15. On the ST(H) certificate produced by the petitioner for getting the job, I feel that his social status should now be re-verified by that competent Committee, specified in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), since the finding by the incompetent District Scrutiny Committee can't have any legal consequence. 16. As regards the disciplinary proceed­ing contemplated by the employer for furnish­ing false information by the petitioner when he entered service, having considered the Court's order dated 11.8.2008 in the Misc. Case No.2260/2008, further steps are left to the wisdom of the HOUSEFED authorities, since this case per se has nothing to do with any disciplinary proceeding. 17. In view of above, the State authorities are directed to re-verify whether the petitioner is entitled to claim tribal status through his mother's lineage or he is only an OBC like his father. The reverification exercises should however be conducted by the competent Committee as was specified by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Dur­ing scrutiny, the petitioner be afforded due opportunity to have his say. 18. With the aforesaid direction, the case stands disposed of with no order on cost.