Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned orders passed by the first respondent and to direct the said respondent to issue a community certificates in favour of the petitioners stating that they belong to `Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community. 2. It had been stated that the petitioners had filed the necessary applications before the first respondent in the writ petitions for the issuance of community certificates to the petitioners stating that they belong to `Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) community. All the relevant documents had also been furnished to the first respondent to substantiate the claims made by the petitioners. However, the first respondent had passed orders rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners, without adducing proper reasons and without considering the documents filed in support of the claims made by the petitioners. In fact, the first respondent had passed orders stating that the petitioners belong to `Kurumbar' (Most Backward Class) Community and that they do not belong to the `Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community, as claimed by them. Various certificates issued in favour of the relatives of the petitioners and certain other relevant documents had been furnished to the first respondent, along with the applications. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned orders, without considering the claims made by the petitioners and without taking into account the documents furnished to the first respondent to substantiate the claims made by the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the first respondent had rejected the claims made by the petitioners, relying on the reports which had been obtained by conducting discreet enquires. However, the copies of the said reports had not been furnished to the petitioners and no opportunity had been given to them to refute the findings in the said enquiry reports. 4. It had also been stated that it is an admitted fact that there is no community called `Kurumbar' community in the State of Tamil Nadu. However, the copies of the said reports had not been furnished to the petitioners and no opportunity had been given to them to refute the findings in the said enquiry reports. 4. It had also been stated that it is an admitted fact that there is no community called `Kurumbar' community in the State of Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, the findings rendered by the first respondent that the claims of the petitioners are not acceptable, as no sufficient evidence is available for the first respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioners belong to `Kuruman' (Scheduled Tribe) Community, are contrary to the facts and the legal principles applicable to the issues which are arising in the present cases. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 5.1. In S.P.Sakthi Devi Vs. The Collector of Salem, Salem, 1998 LW (MS) 105, this court had held as follows: "10.... 1. A Caste/Community certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document till it is cancelled by the said authority or by his superior authority. 2. Their contents are to be treated as correct and every public authority, undertakings, bodies, institutes, etc., which are bound by instructions relating to such certificates, are bound to act upon them, so long as they are not cancelled. 3. In no disciplinary proceedings, their genuineness or correctness of their contents can be gone into. It is open to the department or employer or organisation, to ask the issuing authority or District Collector, as the case may be, to verify whether the certificate as issued could be still vaid, on materials which have since come to their knowledge. They can appear to the verification enquiry and place the materials. 4. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate - Collector of the District or such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner. 5. 4. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate - Collector of the District or such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner. 5. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate-Collector of the District or such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner. 6. In causing verification, the Collector is bound to follow the procedure laid down in letter dated 7th July, 1983, of Government of Tamil Nadu. 7. In view of what is stated in Chapter 19 of Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in services, 6th edition (1982), the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, pertaining to issue of caste certificates are binding upon public sector undertakings, statutory and semi-Government bodies and voluntary agencies receiving grant-in-aid from the Central Government, as provided therein." 5.2. In E.Mani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, (W.P.Nos.25963 and 25964 of 2013, order dated 25.11.2013) the Division Bench of this court had held as follows: “6. Learned Advocate General appeared and in response to the query on the above aspect, fairly conceded that there is no community as "KURUMBAR" finding place in the list of most backward class, backward class or scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community in the Presidential Notification. 7. In view of the above factual matrix, this Court directs the learned Advocate General to take up the matter with the Government for appropriate steps to correct the error that has occasioned by issuance of certificates bearing the name of "KURUMAR" (Most backward class). This exercise, if done, can avoid confusion and litigations at various levels. It will also ensure that the competent authorities do not adjudicate or refer to the community "KURUMBAR" in any proceedings. A circular can also be issued not to refer or, rely upon the name "KURUMBAR" in any proceedings. 8. This exercise, if done, can avoid confusion and litigations at various levels. It will also ensure that the competent authorities do not adjudicate or refer to the community "KURUMBAR" in any proceedings. A circular can also be issued not to refer or, rely upon the name "KURUMBAR" in any proceedings. 8. We find much force in the plea made by the petitioners that the competent authority has relied upon the community "Kurumbar" for rejecting the application for Scheduled Tribe community certificate and we once again reiterate that the competent authority is not entitled to refer to the name of "Kurumbar" (IMBC) for the purpose of deciding the claim for issuance of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate. Even assuming that there are certificates issued in favour of one or other persons bearing the name of "Kurumbar" with or without MBC tag, the authority shall independently verify the claim as to whether the petitioner falls under the Scheduled Tribe community on the basis of relevant materials that would be submitted by the petitioner in the relevant case and also shall follow the procedures prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 15.10.2012. The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is directed to inform all the competent authorities to cease and desist from referring to the name of the community as "Kurumbar" (allegedly said to be MBC) for the purpose of deciding any claim whatsoever. 9. In view of the fact that there is no such community as "Kurumbar" in the Presidential Notification under any category, more particularly under the Scheduled Tribe category or MBC category, the reference to the word "Kurumbar" is itself causing more confusion and series of litigation, which can be avoided if the authority is directed not to refer to this community at all. Any certificate bearing the name "Kurumbar" by any applicant or their relatives is to be eschewed as totally invalid in law. The authority is, however, directed to pass orders on merits in each one of the case, taking note of other relevant particulars, that may be presented and following the procedure as already mentioned above." 5.3. In A.M.Sivakumar vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri, (W.P.No.1807 of 2013, order dated 5.11.2013), the Division Bench of this court had held as follows: "6. The authority is, however, directed to pass orders on merits in each one of the case, taking note of other relevant particulars, that may be presented and following the procedure as already mentioned above." 5.3. In A.M.Sivakumar vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri, (W.P.No.1807 of 2013, order dated 5.11.2013), the Division Bench of this court had held as follows: "6. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the community certificates issued to the petitioner and his wife stating that they belong to 'Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community are valid and have not been cancelled in the manner known to law. If such valid community certificates are produced before the authority, the same should be taken into consideration for all purposes, even for granting community certificates to the children. 7. In State of Bihar v. Sumit Anand, (2005) 12 SCC 248 , the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court directing the revenue authorities to issue community certificate to the children based on the certificates already issued to their father, grandfather, mother, and maternal uncle. The Supreme Court observed as under: "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 respondents 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." 8. In yet another decision in R.Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, JT 1997 (7) SC 660 : (1997) 7 SCC 505 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "5. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer." 9. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer." 9. We find that the respondent has not given any reason as to why the community certificates of the parents of the minor children should not be considered or in what way they are invalid for the purpose of considering the claim of granting community certificates to the minor children. The stand taken by the respondent is a far cry from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said decisions. 10. In this case, we also notice that there is a reference made by the authorities to a community said to be 'Kurumbar', as in large number of writ petitions which have been filed and are pending before this Court. We fail to understand as to how it can be recorded that a community by name 'Kurumbar' is shown to be existent in the State when the Presidential Notification does not contain the community by name 'Kurumbar' either in Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Backward Class or Most Backward Class, etc. lists. The Government has not been able to show that there, in fact, is a community by name 'Kurumbar'. No authority can confer upon a citizen a communal status when it is not shown in the Presidential Notification. 11. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.10.2010 made in W.P.No.19885 of 2010, recorded the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader and opined as under: "3. On the above submissions, we heard Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and he would fairly submit that 'Kurumbar' community is not a community notified under the Government Order. 4. In our opinion, as it is not in dispute that 'Kurumbar' community is not one of the communities notified by the Government, for the purpose of identifying the status of an individual, that community cannot be taken into consideration. 4. In our opinion, as it is not in dispute that 'Kurumbar' community is not one of the communities notified by the Government, for the purpose of identifying the status of an individual, that community cannot be taken into consideration. If that be so, the finding of the second respondent that the petitioner belongs to 'Kurumbar' community cannot be sustained and as a necessary corollary, the same cannot be the reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of Kurumans community certificate." 12. We have called upon the learned Advocate General to address the Court in similar cases to state as to how and on what basis the revenue authorities are issuing certificates showing the communal status as 'Kurumbar', when there is no such community notified anywhere in the Presidential Notification. This confusion in the minds of the authorities of the State is giving rise to number of litigations and we are inclined to resolve the issue in another batch of cases. 13. In the case on hand, since the parents of the minor children have community certificates clearly stating that they belong to 'Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community and in view of the catena of decisions, referred to above, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of the petitioner for grant of community certificate to the minor children is justified and accordingly, a mandamus is issued to the respondent to issue community certificates. This view of ours is fortified by the decisions in (a) A.Madhusamy v. RDO, Dharmapuri, W.P.No.1837 of 2013, dated 15.4.2013; (b) C.Ravanan v. RDO, Vellore, W.P.No.14519 of 2012, dated 12.12.2012; (c) C.V.Kakaivanan v. Sub Collector, Mettur, 2010 (3) CTC 673 ; (d) D.Deivakumar v. RDO, Dharmapuri, W.P.No.22666 of 2009, dated 29.4.2010; and (e) Kavitha and another v. RDO, Dharmapuri, W.P.Nos.21535 and 25415 of 2011, dated 23.3.2012, wherein a positive direction was given to the revenue authorities to issue community certificates. 14. It is not as if the law does not have a remedy against a wrongful claim of communal status. After a series of decisions of this Court, as has been pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV.I) Department, dated 15.10.2012, prescribing the procedure as to how a community certificate issued to persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes can be tested and errors can be rectified. After a series of decisions of this Court, as has been pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV.I) Department, dated 15.10.2012, prescribing the procedure as to how a community certificate issued to persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes can be tested and errors can be rectified. However, we feel that some more has to be done to make it foolproof. But, we now rest with the direction that any doubt that may arise in the minds of the authorities can be resolved in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV.I) Department, dated 15.10.2012. 15. Insofar as the counter affidavit is concerned, we noticed that in paragraph 8(D), the respondent concludes that the forefathers of the petitioner belong to 'Kurumbar' community, which we find is an erroneous statement, not supported by material records. Paragraph 8(B) of the counter affidavit speaks about the false evidence, namely the community certificates issued to the petitioner and his wife. But that is not what is stated in the impugned proceedings. As to how the counter has been filed stating something new, which is not stated in the impugned proceedings, is not known. 16. In paragraphs 7 and 8(F) of the counter, it is stated that an appeal could be filed to the State Level Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner on rejection of his claim. This plea of the respondent is a misconception of the relevant government orders already issued based on the directions of the Apex Court and this Court. It is to be informed to the authorities that proper care should be taken before counter affidavit is filed. The legal position has to be looked into before filing the counter affidavit, which, in this case, is palpably erroneous. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the respondent to grant community certificates to the minor children, namely (i) S.Dhinusha; and (ii) S.Gowri Sankar, as already indicated above, forthwith. No costs." 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the claims made by the petitioners that they belong to `Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community cannot be accepted. The petitioners had not furnished the relevant documents to the first respondent for the issuance of the community certificates, as prayed for by them. No costs." 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the claims made by the petitioners that they belong to `Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community cannot be accepted. The petitioners had not furnished the relevant documents to the first respondent for the issuance of the community certificates, as prayed for by them. The documents furnished by the petitioners are irrelevant to the claims made by them and therefore, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Further, the first respondent had followed the necessary procedures, including the relevant government orders applicable to the matters, before rejecting the claims made by the petitioners. 7. It had been further stated that the Supreme Court had held, in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Laveti Giri, AIR 1995 SC 1560, that the burden of proof of the social status of a person is always on the person who propounds to seek constitutional socio economic advantages and it is not the duty of the State to disprove the claim of the person concerned. 8. The learned counsel had further submitted that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioners to prove their community status. However, they had failed to do so by appearing before the first respondent, by producing the relevant documents in support of their claims. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the first respondent rejecting the claims made by the petitioners, with regard to the issuance of community certificates stating that they belong to `Kurumans' (Scheduled Tribe) Community. We are of the considered view that such disputed facts relating to the issuance of the community certificates ought to be considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the second respondent in the present writ petitions, based on the documents to be furnished by the petitioners. The second respondent shall cause necessary enquires and pass appropriate orders, by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their claims. 10. The second respondent shall cause necessary enquires and pass appropriate orders, by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their claims. 10. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to direct the second respondent, the State Level Scruitiny Committee, to take appropriate steps to conduct necessary enquiries and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, with regard to their claims relating to the issuance of the community certificates, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by the findings rendered by the first respondent herein. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.