Judgment : M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records relating to the order of rejection passed in proceedings, in RC.No.A1/1839/2012, dated 10.08.2012, on the file of the Respondent and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent to issue Community Certificate to his two daughters viz., V.K.Rohini and V.K.Shanthini that they belong to 'Kurumans (ST) Community' based on the community certificate already issued to the brother of the Petitioner which was verified by District Level Vigilance Committee, Vellore on 02.05.2007. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent, by proceedings dated 10.08.2012, had rejected the request of the Petitioner, in seeking issuance of scheduled community ST certificates for his children in an improper and arbitrary manner and also against the principles of natural justice. 3. The main contention advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner's own brother G.Sivaraj obtained a community certificate from the Respondent on 27.06.1996 and this certificate was subjected to verification by the District Level Vigilance Committee and in fact, the said Committee on 02.05.2007 held that the said community certificate was genuine and that he belong to 'Kurumans Community'. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the Petitioner's brother's application seeking issuance of community certificate to his children was rejected, on an earlier occasion, he preferred W.P.No.18797 of 2011 on the file of this Court and the adverse comments of the previous Sub-Collector, Tiruppattur was withdrawn by her in the aforesaid Writ Petition and this Court, on 20.09.2011, passed an order directing the Respondent to issue community certificate to his two children, in the light of certificate issued in his favour and accordingly, the Respondent issued community certificate to his children on 04.10.2012. 5. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that once the Petitioner's family members are in possession of valid community certificates, there is no reason for the Respondent to reject the Petitioner's Application. 6. 5. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that once the Petitioner's family members are in possession of valid community certificates, there is no reason for the Respondent to reject the Petitioner's Application. 6. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Respondent, in the impugned order, dated 10.08.2012, had categorically observed that the Petitioner and his family belong to 'Kurumbar Community' viz., MBC class category and in fact, there is no such community is in existence. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention of this Court that the District Level Vigilance Committee, in para 2 of its findings, dated 02.05.2007, had clearly observed that the Petitioner's brother appeared before it and ultimately, the said Committee, after satisfying itself, confirmed the genuineness of the certificate issued to the brother of the Petitioner. 8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously submits that the Respondent, in the impugned order, dated 10.08.2012, had observed that at their request, the District Collector, Vellore appointed Dr.K.Parimurugan, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropologist, University of Madras, Chennai and that the said person had ultimately came to the conclusion that the Petitioner and the family do not belong to Kurumans Community etc., the said person was not authorised by the Government. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the said Anthropologist was not familiar with the Kurumans Community. 9. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that one Dr.S.Sumathi, Anthropologist, University of Madras, who is familiar with 'Kurumans' verified Petitioner's brother's [G.Sivaraj], certificate, culture and found that he belongs to 'Kurumans Community'. 10. Finally, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the Respondent, in the impugned order, dated 10.08.2012, had rejected the finding of the District Vigilance Committee in respect of the certificate issued to the Petitioner's brother G.Sivaraj stating that it was not a speaking order and further, the said order had not specified the basis for arriving at such a conclusion. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 248 at special page 249, State of Bihar and others V. Sumit Anand, wherein in paragraph 6, it is held as follows: “6. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 248 at special page 249, State of Bihar and others V. Sumit Anand, wherein in paragraph 6, it is held as follows: “6. We have perused the findings recorded by the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge of the High Court. In view of the fact that the respondent's father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all been granted the certificate certifying that they belong to the “Gond” community, we see no reason to come to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the High Court to the effect that the respondent was entitled to issuance of the caste certificate.” and submits that when the Petitioner's family members are in possession and valid community certificates, there is no reason for the Respondent to reject Petitioner's Application dated 25.04.2012. 12. Per contra, it is the submission for the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent that the Petitioner's daughters had already obtained Most Backward Class Certificate claiming that they belong to Kurumba Community. Furthermore, it was found out from the school documents that the Petitioner's daughters V.K.Rohini for whom the Petitioner is presently claiming ST certificate studied under MBC category in Lions Matriculation School, Tirupattur and obtained MBC Community Certificate bearing No.243350, Sl.No.918/ 2005 dated 29.06.2005, issued by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tirupattur and availed all the benefits under MBC category. Moreover, she is studied XI and XII standards at Sri Vijay Vidyalaya, Matric Higher Secondary School, Dharmapuri and claimed that she belongs to MBC community and availed all the benefits under that category as well. Likewise, the Petitioner's another daughter V.K.Shanthini, who studied in St. Charles Matriculation School, Tirupattur declared her caste as MBC – Kurumba. 13. The plea of the Respondent is that during local enquiry, it came to light that several 'Blood Relatives' of the Petitioner obtained MBC – Kurumba Community. In substance, the pivotal argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that the Petitioner's children in question after having obtained MBC community certificates and after having availed all the benefits arising out of the status during their school education, then, it is not open to the Petitioner (father) to seek ST community certificates for higher educational avenues. 14. In substance, the pivotal argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that the Petitioner's children in question after having obtained MBC community certificates and after having availed all the benefits arising out of the status during their school education, then, it is not open to the Petitioner (father) to seek ST community certificates for higher educational avenues. 14. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent forcefully contends that during Parimurugan, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropologist, University of Madras, on earlier occasion, was a member of the District Vigilance Committee, Vellore, who verified the genuineness of the certificates and he is an Expert in this regard. Also that, the list of empanelled/approved list of anthropologists was issued only in May 2013, by the Welfare Department. 15. It cannot be gainsaid that under G.O.(Ms.) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV 1) Department, dated 15.10.2012, the Government has constituted vigilance cell and modified the functions of the Committees ordered in G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 12.09.2007 to verify the certificate issued to a person. In the context of the Government Order thus passed, before taking final decision on the claim of the Petitioner, the State Level Committee shall have the benefit of report from the State Level Vigilance Committee too. Wherever any such report is given, the same shall be furnished to the Petitioner in compliance of principle of natural justice and follow the procedure as laid down in the Government Order and pass orders accordingly. 16. Also that, the Government has issued an amendment to the aforesaid G.O., dated 15.10.2012, in its letter No.18992/CV-1/2012, dated 11.12.2012, wherein it is ordered as follows: “On receipt of the application from the employer / recruiting agency for verification of the genuineness of the Community Certificate of the individual, the District Level Vigilance Committee/State Level Scrutiny Committee shall call the individual for enquiry along with the original documents to substantiate his claim as required by the committee for passing necessary orders. In case of doubtful cases, the committee shall refer the cases to the respective Vigilance Cell, for verification of the community status of the individual.” 17. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent that it is the duty of the certificate issuing authority to satisfy himself/herself after due verification whether the candidates belong to SC/ST Tribe, satisfy the criteria prescribed by the Government. 18. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent that it is the duty of the certificate issuing authority to satisfy himself/herself after due verification whether the candidates belong to SC/ST Tribe, satisfy the criteria prescribed by the Government. 18. It comes to be known that the Petitioner's brother, on earlier occasion, filed W.P.Nos.16751 and 16752 of 2009, on the file of this Court, [seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus in directing the Respondents to grant the Petitioner a permanent community certificate certifying that the Petitioner belongs to Kurumans Community; and for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to fix the seniority of the Petitioner in the category of Junior Assistant in the Registration Department from 25.07.1997 and to grant periodical increments with all arrears as well as promotion on the basis of the said seniority to the next higher post of Assistant and Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department] and on 29.01.2010, this Court passed common order, by, inter alia, observing in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Since the petitioner was issued with provisional community certificate and was confirmed by the District Vigilance Committee by order dated 2-5-2007 he should be issued with permanent certificate. Accordingly, the respondents, in particular, the second respondent is directed to issue permanent community certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Kurumans Community, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hence W.P.No.16751 of 2009 is allowed. No costs. 13. As far as the other writ petition in W.P.No.16752 of 2009 is concerned, this Court cannot direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner, as prayed for in the writ petition. However, after obtaining the permanent Community certificate, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation expressing his grievance and on such receipt of said representation and also the representation already made on 26.9.2007, the authority concerned shall consider and pass orders, within a period of three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. With the above observation, W.P.No.16752 of 2009 is disposed of. No costs.” 19. It also transpires that the Petitioner's brother filed W.P.No.18797 of 2011 [seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in No.Rc.A1/1629/ 2003 dated 20.07.2011 on the file of the Respondent and to quash the same. With the above observation, W.P.No.16752 of 2009 is disposed of. No costs.” 19. It also transpires that the Petitioner's brother filed W.P.No.18797 of 2011 [seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in No.Rc.A1/1629/ 2003 dated 20.07.2011 on the file of the Respondent and to quash the same. Further, he also sought for issuance of direction by this Court to the Respondent to issue community certificate to his two children by name, (1)S.Thejashwini and (2) S.Rajadharshini that they belong to “Kurumans (ST) Community”] and this Court, on 20.09.2011, in paragraph No.4, had observed the following: “4. In our opinion, the impugned order sits over the judgment and the report of the District Level Vigilance Committee in favour of the petitioner, which was also accepted by this Court while directing the respondent to issue the permanent certificate to the petitioner. Hence, we directed the Officer to be present in Court, as the reading of the impugned order shows the comments on the District Level Vigilance Committee's report. When this was pointed out to the Officer, who is present in Court, she has stated that the impugned order was passed inadvertently and it will be withdrawn and the request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificate in favour of his children will be considered afresh on the basis of the certificate given to the petitioner.” and resultantly, in paragraph No.5, had held as under: “5. In view of the above submission, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case and we dispose of the writ petition by recording the statement of the respondent that the impugned order will be withdrawn on or before 22.09.2011 and the request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificate to his two children will be considered in the light of the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of four weeks therefrom. No costs.” 20. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's brother's [G.Sivaraj] children viz., S.Thejashwini and S.Rajadharshini were issued with 'Kurumans (ST) Community' Certificates by the Sub Collector (In-charge), Tirupattur, Vellore District, on 04.10.2011, in R.Dis.1629/ 2003 Sl.Nos.1349 & 1350/11. 21. No costs.” 20. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's brother's [G.Sivaraj] children viz., S.Thejashwini and S.Rajadharshini were issued with 'Kurumans (ST) Community' Certificates by the Sub Collector (In-charge), Tirupattur, Vellore District, on 04.10.2011, in R.Dis.1629/ 2003 Sl.Nos.1349 & 1350/11. 21. At this stage, it is to be pertinently pointed out that the two said Community Certificates in favour of the Petitioner's brother's children were issued in terms of the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18797 of 2011. 22. It is to be noted that the Petitioner is working in the Southern Railways as 'Track Man' and according to him, he does not possess any Community Certificate. 23. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, this Court relevantly points out that when the Petitioner's brother's [Sivaraj] certificate was found to be genuine as per Proceedings of Vellore District, District Vigilance Committee, dated 02.05.2007 and the same being referred to, in para 12 of the Division Bench Order of this Court, dated 29.01.2010, in W.P.Nos.16751 & 16752 of 2009 [filed by Petitioner's brother G.Sivaraj] and subsequently, when the Petitioner's brother's two children were issued with two Community (ST) Certificates on 04.10.2011, by the Sub Collector (I/c), Tirupattur, Vellore District, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18797 of 2011 dated 20.09.2011, then, this Court is of the considered view that it is not open to the Respondent, in the impugned order, dated 10.08.2012, to make a significant mention that the Petitioner's brother's confirmation order by the District Vigilance Committee (in regard to his certificate) was not a speaking order and it was difficult to analyse the basis of the present Writ Petitioner's claim. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the orders of the two Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court in W.P.Nos.16751 and 16752 of 2009 dated 29.01.2010 and W.P.No.18797 of 2011 dated 20.09.2011 (filed by the Petitioner's brother G.Sivaraj) had become final, conclusive and binding between the partiesinter se. That apart, the conclusion arrived at by the Respondent, in the impugned order, dated 10.08.2012, that the Petitioner and his family belong to Kurumbar Community is not a valid and legally correct one, because of the simple reason that there is no such community in existence as 'Kurumbar', in the considered opinion of this Court. 24. That apart, the conclusion arrived at by the Respondent, in the impugned order, dated 10.08.2012, that the Petitioner and his family belong to Kurumbar Community is not a valid and legally correct one, because of the simple reason that there is no such community in existence as 'Kurumbar', in the considered opinion of this Court. 24. In view of the foregoing detailed discussions and reasons, we are constrained to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.08.2012 passed by the Respondent and sets aside the same, in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 25. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order of the Respondent dated 10.08.2012 is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Writ Petition. The entire gamut of the subject matter is remitted back to the Respondent for fresh consideration. Further, the Respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner's Application dated 25.04.2012, praying for issuance of Community Certificate to his two daughters viz., V.K.Rohini and V.K.Shanthini that they belong to 'Kurumans (ST) Community' based on the community certificate already issued to the brother of the Petitioner, which was verified by District Level Vigilance Committee, Vellore on 02.05.2007, on merits, in a Just, Fair and Dispassionate manner, by passing a reasoned speaking order ascribing reasons thereto [of course after providing due opportunities to all concerned], within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is open to the Petitioner to submit copy of the order dated 29.01.2010 in W.P.Nos.16751 and 16752 of 2009 and the copy of the order in W.P.No.18797 of 2011 dated 20.09.2011 to the Respondent for perusal and for resultant follow up necessary action.