ORDER These three writ petitions are disposed of through this common order. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.25714 of 2001 is the younger brother of the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.23120 and 25801 of 2001. 2. Their caste certificates that they are Konda Kapus belonging to Scheduled Tribe have been cancelled by the District Collector, East Godavari district. Questioning the same, W.P.No.23120 of 2001 by the elder brother and W.P.No.25714 of 2001 by the younger brother are laid. W.P.No.25801 of 2001 is by the elder brother assailing the order of removal from service through impugned order dated 06.12.2001. 3. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer the petitioner in W.P.No.23120 of 2001 and W.P.No.25801 of 2001 as the 1st petitioner who is the elder brother of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.25714 of 2001. I shall refer the writ petitioner in W.P.No.25714 of 2001 as the 2nd petitioner as he is the younger brother of the 1st petitioner. 4. The District Collector passed order against the 1st petitioner on 05.06.2000 cancelling the caste certificates issued by different officials. Assailing the same, the 1st petitioner laid W.P.No.23120 of 2001. Similar orders were passed by the District Collector, so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, on 24.10.1998. The 2nd petitioner filed W.P.No.25714 of 2001. On the basis of the orders of the District Collector, the employer of the 1st petitioner terminated service 1st petitioner through orders dated 06.12.2001. Questioning the same, W.P.No.25801 of 2001 is laid. 5. The District Collector passed orders not only cancelling the caste certificates of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they belong to Konda Kapus community but also declared that the petitioners are Kapus by community. This Court passed interim orders on 30.12.2001 suspending the order passed by the District Collector enabling the 1st petitioner to continue in service. The 1st petitioner also obtained interim orders on 30.01.2002 in W.P.No.25801 of 2001 suspending the orders passed by the employer of the 1st petitioner dated 06.12.2001. The suspension of both the orders by this Court ultimately led to the retirement of the 1st petitioner from service. The employer of the 2nd petitioner, pursuant upon the orders of the District Collector dated 24.10.1998 passed orders on 27.11.2001 terminating the service of the 2nd petitioner. Interim orders were passed suspending the orders dated 27.11.2001 passed by the employer. The 2nd petitioner consequently is continuing in service. 6. The employer of the 2nd petitioner, pursuant upon the orders of the District Collector dated 24.10.1998 passed orders on 27.11.2001 terminating the service of the 2nd petitioner. Interim orders were passed suspending the orders dated 27.11.2001 passed by the employer. The 2nd petitioner consequently is continuing in service. 6. The petitioners claimed that they hail from Devarapalli village, Maredimilli mandal falling within the agency track in the district of East Godavari. They claimed that they are Konda Kapus by caste. 7. Appanna, resident of Devarapalli had two wives being Tirri Achayamma (Achchamma) and Valala Laxmamma. Tirri Achayamma died in 1930 without any issue. Valala Lakshmamma gave birth to Ramulu who is the father of the petitioners. Lakshmamma died in 1960. These facts alleged by the petitioners are not seriously disputed. 8. Petitioners’ father Ramulu migrated to Samalkot and worked as a lorry cleaner. He ultimately became a lorry driver. He died in 1967. Ramulu, father of the petitioners married Satyavathi of Samalkot, belongs to Kapu community. The 1st petitioner was born on 10.08.1944. Ramulu and Sathyavathi begot second son in 1950. Their third son is the 2nd petitioner who was born on 15.01.1954. In their turn, the 1st petitioner married a Kapu lady in 1967 whereas, the 2nd petitioner married a lady from Konda Kapu community. 9. The 1st petitioner was admitted in the 1st class at Samalkota on 11.06.1951. He was described to be belonging to Konda Kapu community. His entire record shows that he belongs to Konda Kapu. 10. On 20.10.1967, the 1st petitioner was appointed by the Food Department as a Godown clerk on the basis that the 1st petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe as Konda Kapu. The Food Department was subsequently merged on 16.12.1968 with Food Corporation of India (‘FCI’ for short). The 1st petitioner consequently became an employee of FCI. He was promoted as Assistant Grade-II (Depot) in 1972 and as Assistant Grade-I (Depot) in 1976. At the time of his promotion as Assistant Grade-I (Depot), he was directed to obtain caste certificate from competent authority. The Tahasildar, who was the competent authority at that time, issued a caste certificate on 21.12.1978 declaring that the 1st petitioner was a member of Scheduled Tribes being belonging to Konda Kapu community. Before considering to permit the 1st petitioner as an Assistant Manager, the 1st petitioner was again asked in 1984 to produce caste certificate. The Tahasildar, who was the competent authority at that time, issued a caste certificate on 21.12.1978 declaring that the 1st petitioner was a member of Scheduled Tribes being belonging to Konda Kapu community. Before considering to permit the 1st petitioner as an Assistant Manager, the 1st petitioner was again asked in 1984 to produce caste certificate. The 1st petitioner obtained caste certificate on 23.07.1984 from the Tahasildar, describing the 1st petitioner as belonging to Konda Kapu community. The 1st petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Manager (Depot) in 1989. 11. The petitioner was the Secretary for FCI Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association, for a long time. In 1989, another person was elected as the Secretary of the Association. The Association then made a written representation to the FCI that the 1st petitioner was not a Konda Kapu, that he married a Kapu lady and that he did not belong to a Schedule Tribe. The FCI conducted investigation. However, the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issuing of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short) had not come into force by then. The District Collector directed the Sub Collector to enquire and report. The Sub Collector, in his turn, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to enquire and report about the community of the 1st petitioner. On 18.01.1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report. The report is more or less in favour of the 1st petitioner showing that the 1st petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe. However, on 01.03.1990, the District Collector issued a show cause notice to the 1st petitioner seeking explanation as to why the certificate shall not be cancelled. The 1st petitioner submitted a representation on 31.05.1990 seeking for further time as he was otherwise busy in official duties. The District Collector, however, passed orders on 02.06.1990 cancelling the caste certificate. Contending that the cancellation was without enquiry and without opportunity to the 1st petitioner, he filed W.P.No.8033 of 1990 which was allowed on 07.12.1998. The orders of the District Collector were set aside and he was directed to hold enquiry in terms of the Act. 12. The District Collector thereafter issued notice asking the 1st petitioner to appear on 08.02.2000. The notice was served upon the 1st petitioner on 13.02.2000. Consequently, fresh notice was issued on 19.02.2000 directing the 1st petitioner to appear before him on 25.02.2000. 12. The District Collector thereafter issued notice asking the 1st petitioner to appear on 08.02.2000. The notice was served upon the 1st petitioner on 13.02.2000. Consequently, fresh notice was issued on 19.02.2000 directing the 1st petitioner to appear before him on 25.02.2000. On that date, the 1st petitioner appeared before the District Collector. 13. The 1st petitioner contended that he filed all relevant documents and sought for enquiry. On 05.06.2000, the impugned order was passed by the District Collector. 14. Sri P.Gangayya Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order of the District Collector was based upon the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Sub Collector. He also submitted that a copy of the report of the Sub Collector had not been furnished to the petitioners and that the 1st petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government questioning the order of the District Collector dated 05-6-2000. He pointed out that the Government dismissed his representation and issued G.O.Ms.No.103, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 31-10-2001, dismissing the appeal. As already pointed out, the 1st petitioner filed the 1st writ petition in W.P.No.23120 of 2001 seeking for a declaration that the proceedings of the District Collector dated 05-6-2000 and the orders in G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 31-10-2001, issued by the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent respectively as illegal and for a consequential relief. The 2nd writ petition in W.P.No.25801 of 2001 is against the employer (Food Corporation of India) to declare the proceedings dated 06-12-2001 terminating his services as illegal and for consequential relief. 15. The 2nd petitioner, in his turn, filed the other writ petition in W.P.No.25714 of 2001 seeking for a Writ of mandamus against the District Collector and the Government assailing the orders dated 24-10-1998 (passed by the 1st respondent) and G.O.Ms.No.102, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 31-10-2001 (passed by the 2nd respondent) and the consequential proceedings dated 27-11-2001 passed by the 3rd respondent terminating his services as illegal. The petitioners 1 and 2 are natural brothers. If the 1st petitioner belongs to Konda Kapu Community, the 2nd petitioner also would be belonging to the same community. Similarly, if the 1st petitioner is not a Konda Kapu by community, the 2nd petitioner also cannot be considered to be Konda Kapu by community. 16. The petitioners 1 and 2 are natural brothers. If the 1st petitioner belongs to Konda Kapu Community, the 2nd petitioner also would be belonging to the same community. Similarly, if the 1st petitioner is not a Konda Kapu by community, the 2nd petitioner also cannot be considered to be Konda Kapu by community. 16. On 21-12-1978, the Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram, issued Caste Certificate to the 1st petitioner declaring that the fore-fathers of the 1st petitioner were residents of Devarapalli, Rampachodavaram Taluq, East Godavari District, that they left their village about 45 years prior to the date of the Certificate and that the 1st petitioner belongs to Konda Kapu Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. Again on 21-7-1984, similar Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram. When the District Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli, through the Sub Collector, Rampachodavaram, to conduct enquiry regarding the caste of the 1st petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli, submitted a detailed report to the 1st respondent-District Collector through proceedings dated 18-01-1990. He pointed out that Appanna, grand-father of the 1st petitioner, lived at Devarapalli till 1930. The 1st wife and the 2nd wife of Appanna bore maiden surnames as Terri and Valala. The Mandal Revenue Officer recorded that there are Konda Kapus with surnames Terri and Valala. He also pointed out that there is a practice of calling Konda Kapus as Kapus, Konda Reddys as Reddys and Koya Doras as Koyas. He examined 6 persons all of whom belong to Konda Kapu Community. He also pointed out that Danala, which is the surname of the petitioners, is the family name of Konda Kapus. The Mandal Revenue Officer, however, pointed out that none of the members of the family of the petitioners presently reside at Devarapalli. 17. While so, the District Collector passed orders on 02-6-1990 cancelling the Caste Certificates issued by the Tahsildar of Rampachodavaram on 24-12-1978 and on 23-7-1984 in favour of the 1st petitioner and declared that the 1st petitioner belongs to Kapu Community. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.8033 of 1990 seeking for a Writ of mandamus to set aside the order of the District Collector. Through orders dated 07-12-1998, this Court quashed the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 02-6-1990. The District Collector was directed to consider the explanation of the 1st petitioner dated 31-5-1990 and pass appropriate orders de novo. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.8033 of 1990 seeking for a Writ of mandamus to set aside the order of the District Collector. Through orders dated 07-12-1998, this Court quashed the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 02-6-1990. The District Collector was directed to consider the explanation of the 1st petitioner dated 31-5-1990 and pass appropriate orders de novo. The District Collector was also directed to consider the request of the 1st petitioner to conduct an open enquiry to determine his social status. Thereafter, the District Collector issued proceedings on 05-6-2000 followed by G.O.Ms.No.103, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 31-10-2001. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the observations of the District Collector are against the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. As already noticed, the Mandal Revenue Officer observed that the two wives of the paternal grand-father as well as the paternal grand-father of the petitioners bore surnames borne by Konda Kapus and that the family of the petitioners were not residing at Devarapalli. In the order dated 05-6-2000, it was clearly stated by the learned District Collector that the father of the 1st petitioner was a Konda Kapu by community and that the 1st petitioner married a Kapu lady, so much so, the 1st petitioner shall be considered to be a Kapu. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners attacked the orders of the District Collector on various grounds. His first contention is that Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (1993 Act, for short) containing transitional provision envisages that a Community Certificate issued before the commencement of 1993 Act shall hold good unless the same is cancelled under the provisions of 1993 Act. He also referred to Rules 7 and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (1997 Rules, for short). Under the scheme of the Rules, District and State Level Committees are organized and that the District Level Committee constituted under Rule 8 of 1997 Rules considers the truth of the Certificate. He submitted that no enquiry was conducted by the District Level Committee to decide the truth about the Certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram. 20. In D.Sudershan v. Govt. He submitted that no enquiry was conducted by the District Level Committee to decide the truth about the Certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram. 20. In D.Sudershan v. Govt. of A.P. (2004 (7) ALT 584 (D.B.)), it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that in view of Rule 8 of 1997 Rules, the District Collector is duty bound to refer the dispute to the Scrutiny Committee for enquiry and that the order of the District Collector without opinion from the Scrutiny Committee is illegal. Earlier, in Sankaravamsam Sasidevi (Kum.) v. Commissioner of Tribal Welfare ( 2002 (2) ALT 32 (D.B.)), a Division Bench of this Court held that the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare was a member of the Scrutiny and Review Committee at State Level and that he has no power to enquire independently into a doubtful claim of Community Certificate. In J.V.T.Krishna Murthy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( 2008 (4) ALT 635 ), the Court held that the District Collector is empowered to initiate steps and set the machinery in motion whenever doubt arises as to the genuineness of a Caste Certificate and that it is the District Level Scrutiny Committee headed by the Joint Collector which shall conduct enquiry and submit its report whether the concerned person belongs to Scheduled Tribe etc., albeit District Level Committee has no power to cancel the Caste Certificate even if it is found to be fraudulent. Ultimately, it was noticed in this case also that unless Rule 8 of 1997 Rules is followed and the opinion of the District Level Scrutiny Committee is obtained, the District Collector independently cannot determine the genuineness of the Caste Certificate obtained by the individual. 21. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that when the dispute was not referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, finding of the District Collector is bad and is liable to be set aside. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also contended that obviously, every individual takes the caste of his father and that the petitioners consequently shall be recognized as Konda Kapus as admittedly their father was a Konda Kapu. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also contended that obviously, every individual takes the caste of his father and that the petitioners consequently shall be recognized as Konda Kapus as admittedly their father was a Konda Kapu. In Government of A.P. v. Pagadala Khali Kanthi ( 2010 (3) ALT 663 (D.B.)), it was noticed that an offspring of a tribal man and a non-tribal woman attains the status of a tribal community of the father and not the community of the mother. In W.S.V.Satyanarayana vs. Director of Tribal Welfare ( 1996 (1) ALT 170 ), it was pointed out that the social status of a child goes with the social status of the father but not with that of the mother. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that as the report of the District Collector itself shows that the petitioners’ father was a Konda Kapu, the petitioners should automatically take Konda Kapu Community. 23. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare contended that in case of marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal, the caste of the father is not determinative factor in all cases. He placed reliance upon RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA v. STATE OF GUJARAT ( (2012) 3 SCC 400 ). In that case, the appellant was born to a Scheduled Tribe mother and a forward caste father. The Caste Certificate that he belonged to Scheduled Tribes was subsequently cancelled on the ground that his father was a non-tribal. The facts that the appellant was brought up as a member of tribal community, that he and his siblings were married to members of Scheduled Tribe and by virtue of being the son of a forward caste father, the appellant did not obtain any advantageous start in life but suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps were not adverted to. The Supreme Court observed that the caste of offspring is essentially a question of fact and cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. It held that there might be a presumption that the child takes the caste of the father but the same is not conclusive or irrebuttable presumption. 24. The Supreme Court observed that the caste of offspring is essentially a question of fact and cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. It held that there might be a presumption that the child takes the caste of the father but the same is not conclusive or irrebuttable presumption. 24. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that as the father of the petitioners married a Kapu lady and as the petitioners were brought up at Samalkot, they cannot be considered to be belonging to tribal community. It may be noticed at the outset that in this decision of the Supreme Court, the mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe and the father was a non-tribal. The question was whether the appellant could be considered to be a non-tribal or a tribal. In the case on hand, reverse is the situation. The father of the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The mother was a non-tribal. There is no evidence that the petitioners were not brought up in the tribal customs. I therefore consider that the decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the present case. In the absence of the decision of the Supreme Court, in view of Pagadala Khali Kanthi and W.S.V.Satyanarana (4 and 5 supra), the petitioners shall be considered to take the social status of their father, so much so, they shall be considered to be belonging to Scheduled Tribes. 25. Admittedly, the school records of the petitioners show that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. Rule 8(d)(5) of 1997 Rules contemplates that the District Level Scrutiny Committee shall examine the school records, birth registration certificates and the like to determine the social status of the applicant. Where admittedly the school certificates show the social status of the petitioners as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, it is strong factor to support the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe. 26. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also contended that the school records are 30-year old documents and that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is in their favour to show that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Sri Lakhi Baruah v. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita ( AIR 1996 SC 1253 ). In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Sri Lakhi Baruah v. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita ( AIR 1996 SC 1253 ). Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a presumption can be drawn regarding the genuineness of a 30-year old document. However, the presumption is not regarding the truth of the contents of the document. Merely because in a 30-year old document the social status of the petitioners was shown as Scheduled Tribe, the petitioners cannot contend that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. At the same time, school record is one of the relevant factors to be considered under Rule 8(d)(5) of 1997 Rules to determine the social status of the applicant. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe which is evident not only from the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli but also from the school record and from the admitted fact that the father of the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community. 27. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare referred to Section 5 of 1993 Act which empowers the District Collector to order cancellation of false Community Certificates whether such Certificates were issued before the Act came into force or otherwise. He also submitted that the District Collector referred the case of the 1st petitioner to the District Level Scrutiny Committee under Rule 8 of 1997 Rules. However, the record does not speak about the District Collector referring the Caste Certificate of the 1st petitioner to the District Level Scrutiny Committee. Regarding the school certificates showing the petitioners as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare indeed is correct that the school records were not preceded by any independent enquiry regarding the community of the petitioners. However, where the school records show the petitioners as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, it is for the District Collector and for the District Level Scrutiny Committee to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. There is nothing on record to show that the District Level Scrutiny Committee considered the school records. 28. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare also contended that the burden is upon the petitioners to show that they belong to Scheduled Tribes. There is nothing on record to show that the District Level Scrutiny Committee considered the school records. 28. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare also contended that the burden is upon the petitioners to show that they belong to Scheduled Tribes. Indeed, Section 6 of 1993 Act places burden upon the petitioners for obtaining Community Certificates and to prove that they belong to Scheduled Tribes when the Community Certificates in their favour are sought to be cancelled. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that all possible records available with the petitioners have been produced before the District Collector. That apart, the very report of the Mandal Revenue Officer shows that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe. More important, even the District Collector agreed that the father of the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Nothing else is necessary for the petitioners to prove that they belong to Scheduled Tribes where the admitted fact by the District Collector need not be proved again by the petitioners. 29. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare tried to repel the contention of the petitioners that the dispute was not referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee and that consequently, the very proceedings of the District Collector are bad, by placing reliance upon Rule 9(9) of 1997 Rules. Rule 9(9) of 1997 Rules envisages that the District Collector or the Government may enquire into the correctness of any Community Certificate already obtained by any individual. It does not absolve the duty of the District Collector to refer the dispute to the District Level Scrutiny Committee for its opinion. There is no doubt that the Presidential Declaration under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India decide the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; it is not open to contend that particular community does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes so long as the Presidential Declaration shows the community to be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. There is no dispute that Konda Kapu is a tribal community. The controversy is whether the petitioners belong to Konda Kapu or otherwise. For various reasons already set out, I agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have established that they are Konda Kapus by community. 30. There is no dispute that Konda Kapu is a tribal community. The controversy is whether the petitioners belong to Konda Kapu or otherwise. For various reasons already set out, I agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have established that they are Konda Kapus by community. 30. The 2nd petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the 1st petitioner as he is the natural brother of the 1st petitioner. Consequently, once it is found that the 1st petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe it automatically enures to the 2nd petitioner also. Consequently, both the petitioners are found to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 31. Accordingly, W.P.No.23120 of 2001 is allowed. G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 31-10-2001, is found to be improper and unjust and is accordingly set aside. The Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram, is restored. W.P.No.25801 of 2001 is allowed. As the petitioner therein belongs to Scheduled Tribe, the termination of his services are illegal and are accordingly set aside. It is deemed that the petitioner therein continued in service till the date of his retirement. W.P.No.25714 of 2001 is allowed. G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 31-10-2001, is found to be improper and is accordingly set aside. The Community Certificate obtained by the petitioner therein from the Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram, on 23-7-1984 is restored. Consequently, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner therein by the 3rd respondent-Food Corporation of India through proceedings dated 27-11-2001 are set aside restoring the petitioner therein to service. No costs.