Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 in both appeals and for 3rd respondent in W.A.No.24/2013, Mr. V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader for R4 in W.A.No.24/2013 and Mr. N.S.Nandakumar for R3. 2. These writ appeals are filed against the common order made in Review Application No.66/2012 in W.P.No.20185/2006 and Review Application SR No.49652/2012 in W.P.No.20184/2006 respectively, which were disposed of on 25.7.2012. 3. The appellant in both the writ appeals is one and the same. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies through Employment Exchange and after the steps being taken by the Government to regularise the services of the temporary hands, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) conducted Special Qualifying Examination and the appellant participated in the Examination and also secured the qualifying marks. The application of the appellant was rejected by cancelling the selection on the ground that the Community Certificate obtained by the appellant, certifying that he belongs to Puthirai Vannan Community, which is a Scheduled Caste, was not a genuine one and the said cancellation order was passed on 23.6.1993. Pursuant to the said cancellation of selection by T.N.P.S.C., the order of termination was also passed by the Department on 23.7.1993. Both the orders were originally challenged in O.A.Nos.4508/1993 and 5210/1993, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and on the abolition of the Tribunal, the said cases were transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.20184 and 20185/2006 respectively and after hearing, the said order cancelling the selection by T.N.P.S.C. and the consequential termination order were upheld. Thereafter, the appellant filed review applications to review the common order passed in the writ petitions and the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the review applications. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present writ appeals. 4. During the pendency of the review applications, the Tahsildar, Kothagiri, has issued a Community Certificate dated 11.11.2010, certifying that the appellant belongs to Hindu Puthiri Vannan Community, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste as per the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Serial No.60. 5. 4. During the pendency of the review applications, the Tahsildar, Kothagiri, has issued a Community Certificate dated 11.11.2010, certifying that the appellant belongs to Hindu Puthiri Vannan Community, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste as per the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Serial No.60. 5. When these appeals were listed on 4.6.2014, the learned Special Government Pleader for the newly impleaded fourth respondent in W.A.No.23/2013 was directed to ascertain and report as to whether the said Community Certificate dated 11.11.2010, was issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Kothagiri or not. The learned Special Government Pleader was given instructions by the Tahsildar, Kothagiri, through proceedings in Na.Ka.A2.No.2473/2014 dated 10.6.2014, stating that the Certificate issued to the appellant bearing Serial No.947 in Permanent Community Certificate Card No.4018288 dated 11.11.2010, is genuine as it was issued by the said Office only. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the appellant's Community Certificate was not bogus. This Court in very may decisions held that T.N.P.S.C. has no jurisdiction to cancell the selection by doubting the community status of a candidate. The Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2011 (4) LW 673 (TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. R.MANIKANDAN AND ANOTHER), reiterated the said issue and settled finally. Hence the cancellation of selection as well as the order of termination issued against the appellant, cannot be allowed to stand. The appellant was kept out of service from 23.7.1993 and he has not discharged his duties for about 21 years. The agony of the appellant is understandable. But still, it may not be proper to award back-wages for 21 years. 6. Therefore, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met by setting aside the order cancelling the selection of the appellant dated 23.6.1993, as well as the consequential termination order issued on 23.7.1993, as well as the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions and review applications, and accordingly, they are set aside and the appellant shall be reinstated in service with continuity of service and other benefits including promotions, if any, but without back-wages, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On reinstatement, if no promotion was given to his juniors, the Co-operative Department shall notionally fix Selection Grade and Special Grade pay on his completion of 10 and 20 years of service respectively and fix the pay from July, 2014. The entire service from the date of initial appointment shall be counted as regular service for all purposes. The writ appeals are allowed with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.