Judgment : The writ petition is filed, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Proc.No.Pa.Mu.(Aa3) 5554/2009 dated 11.06.2010 as also the proceedings of the third respondent in Letter No.RO.HRM.1137/2010 dated 17.03.2010 with consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Peon / Hamal in the 3rd respondent Bank from the date of Medical Test viz., 24.06.2009. 2. Heard Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and Mr.R.Ramesh, learned counsel for Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for R3. 3. The facts of the case in a nut-shell are as follows:- (3a) The petitioner was born to one Chinnasamy and Sundalai Ammal on 17.12.1981 and has two sisters and four brothers. She belongs to socially and economically weaker section of the community, namely, Kattunaicken Community and her father belonged to the said community by his birth. They were all residing at B.S.R.Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District for the past so many years. She studied in Muslim Higher Secondary School, Sivakasi and completed her 10th standard. She has also obtained the Community Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi as also her four brothers, certifying that they all belonged to Kattunaicken Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community; (3b) Pursuant to an advertisement in the local dailies on 26.09.2008 calling for applications to the post of Peon / Hamal in the 3rd respondent Bank, she submitted her application and after conducting interview on 22.04.2009, she had produced all the relevant certificates and thereafter, she was referred to the Medical Test, as she was selected to the post. With a view to thwart giving postings, the 3rd respondent wanted her to submit the latest community certificate by his letter dated 25.08.2009, though under law they were not entitled to seek for a latest community certificate, as the previous certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi. However, with a view to satisfy the requirements, she has also applied to the said authority for issuance of community certificate on 01.12.2009. However, with a view to satisfy the requirements, she has also applied to the said authority for issuance of community certificate on 01.12.2009. Though the employer has the right to verify the community certificate, there is no necessity to insist upon getting a latest community certificate, as there is no scope for altering the status; (3c) Thereafter, besides the delay in getting appointment, her efforts in getting particulars under RTI Act and also representation through the Tamil Nadu Kattunaicken (Pazhangudiyinar) Jananayaga Seerthirutha Sangam all ended in vain. Subsequently, she submitted an application to the 1st respondent for issuance of latest community certificate on 01.12.2009, who, mistaking the same as one made for scrutiny or verification of the certificate, directed to appear for an enquiry vide his letter dated 13.10.2009. Pursuant thereto, she also attended the enquiry and submitted various documents to prove that the petitioner belongs to Kattunaicken Community. But, the 1st respondent, without properly appreciating the facts and with predetermined mind to reject the claim, stated vide his impugned order dated 11.06.2010 that since she was not residing at Sivakasi, he could not ascertain the genuineness of her certificate and he replied to the petitioner at Pollachi address; (3d) Since the counsel, to whom the case was originally handed over for filing in this Court, has expired, after tracing out the papers, the present writ petition has been filed and therefore, there is no delay or laches on her part in approaching this Court in view of the peculiar facts of the case; (3e) Taking advantage of the situation, the 3rd respondent proceeded to cancel her appointment vide his letter dated 17.03.2010 and thus, the petitioner, having left with no other alternative, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever she approached the 3rd respondent, she was given to understand that they would consider her claim on the basis of record, but till date, no other proceedings were communicated to her. 4. Whenever she approached the 3rd respondent, she was given to understand that they would consider her claim on the basis of record, but till date, no other proceedings were communicated to her. 4. The impugned proceedings were challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: i) That the third respondent has no jurisdiction to call for a latest community certificate, which is unknown to law and that the entire approach of the respondents is malafide, unreasonable, arbitrary and liable to be set aside, besides vitiating the constitutional safeguard given to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes; ii) That the respondents have violated the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the 1st respondent is not justified in evading the issue, particularly when he was aware of the present address of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has not passed any orders, cancelling her appointment and no notice for that purpose was also given to her. Hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated on the simple reason of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as under: “1. I submit that I am the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi and 1st Respondent herein and well acquainted with the fact of this case from the records available at office. I have read the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this writ petition and deny all the averments contained there in except those that are specifically admitted hereunder and put the petitioner the true and strict proof of the same. I am filing this affidavit on behalf of myself and 2nd Respondent. 2. I respectfully submit that the 1st Respondent herein has issued a community certificate ie, Hindu Kattunaicken Certificate to the Petitioner vide his No.R.Dis/4833/94, dt: 13.12.1994. 3. I submit that the 3rd Respondent has informed the petitioner to submit latest Community Certificate for scheduled Tribe in the requisite format which is essential to consider her case for the appointment of peon-cum-hamal in the Bank vide his letter No.RO,HRM/571/2009, dt:25.08.2009. 4. I submit that the petitioner has sent a petition dated: 03.08.2009 through Registered Post to the 1st Respondent to issue latest Community Certificate. The petition was received in our office of the 1st Respondent on 10.08.2009. 4. I submit that the petitioner has sent a petition dated: 03.08.2009 through Registered Post to the 1st Respondent to issue latest Community Certificate. The petition was received in our office of the 1st Respondent on 10.08.2009. On the representation of the petitioner, 1st respondent conducted spot enquiry at Door No.77, P.S.R. Road, Perandammal Street, Sivakasi Town on 11.06.2010. As the petitioner was not residing at the above address the genuineness of the case is not able to ascertain. The fact was reported to the 3rd Respondent vide Letter No.D.Dis.B3/5554/2009, dt:11.6.2010.” 6. The 3rd respondent / Bank has filed a counter, refuting the averments of the petitioner as under: “1. I am the Chief Manager of the 3rd Respondent Bank herein. I am authorized to depose hereto. 2. I deny all the allegations contained in the Affidavit except those that are specifically admitted by me herein and put the petitioner herein, to strict proof thereof. 3. I humbly submit that, prima facie, this Writ Petition is not maintainable, as the Petitioner herein, has sought to challenge a letter dated 17.3.2010, which was issued by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner, informing her that since more than 8 months had elapsed, to submit her latest community certificate 15 days time was given to her, to submit the same. This letter is in the nature of a show cause notice, giving the Petitioner time for compliance. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek any remedy from this Hon'ble Court by challenging the same when, subsequently, the Respondent Bank had cancelled her candidature for appointment as Peon/Hamal vide letter dated 9.7.2010 and the same has not been challenged before this Hon'ble Court. 4. I submit that, in 2008, the Respondent Bank had vacancies for the post of “Peon-cum-Hamal” and therefore, issued a paper publication dated 26.9.2008, for recruitment of Peon/Hamal. The Respondent Bank received several applications for the post, including one K.Varalakshmi, D/o.Chinnasamy, C/o.Krishnan. M. No.106, Thannasaippan Koil Street, Kattunaiken Street, Pollachi, Coimbatore. After conducting interview on 22.4.2009, the Bank had issued a letter dated 18.6.2009 to the petitioner informing that she has been provisionally shortlisted for appointment to the post of Peon/Hamal, in the Bank and thereby requesting her to complete the pre-recruitment formalities. It is specifically stated in this letter that this was not an appointment order. After conducting interview on 22.4.2009, the Bank had issued a letter dated 18.6.2009 to the petitioner informing that she has been provisionally shortlisted for appointment to the post of Peon/Hamal, in the Bank and thereby requesting her to complete the pre-recruitment formalities. It is specifically stated in this letter that this was not an appointment order. Subsequently, the Respondent Bank vide letter dated 24.6.2009 had sent the Petitioner, a letter of appointment, subject to terms and conditions, more specifically, the Petitioner had to submit her latest caste/tribe/community certificate, which was verified by the proper authority. This was not submitted to the Respondent Bank. 5. I state that since the Petitioner applied for recruitment under the Schedule Tribe quota, it is imperative that the Respondent Bank, seek proper verification of the status. Therefore, Respondent Bank had communicated to the Petitioner and the other selected candidates that they have to submit in Original their latest Community Certificate in the requisite format. Excepting the Petitioner, all others have submitted their latest community certificate. On the contrary, the Petitioner had submitted a representation to the Bank enclosing the photocopy of community certificate dated 19.12.1994. On receipt of this, the Bank replied to the petitioner, informing her that she would have to submit her latest community certificate in the prescribed format to consider her application in the Bank. 6. I submit that since the Petitioner had not submitted her Community Certificate even after 8 months, the Bank sent the Petitioner a letter dated 17.3.2010, informing her to submit the latest certificate within 15 days of receipt of the letter, failing which, her appointment would be cancelled. Despite the receipt of the above letter, the Petitioner herein, did not submit the Certificate nor did she reply to the letter. Left with no other option, the Respondent Bank issued letter dated 9.7.2010 cancelling her candidature and name from the panel. It is pertinent to note that the Bank has not abolished the post of Peon/Hamal. 7. I submit that the rationale for reserved posts, is for upliftment and to protect the genuine socially and economically weaker sections of the people in this Country. That being the case, undeserving persons taking posts reserved for SC/ST is a fraud on the Constitution of India. Moreover, the Respondent Bank had only asked for her latest community certificate in the prescribed format. 8. That being the case, undeserving persons taking posts reserved for SC/ST is a fraud on the Constitution of India. Moreover, the Respondent Bank had only asked for her latest community certificate in the prescribed format. 8. I further submit that, when all other selected candidates produced their latest Community Certificate, as sought for by the Bank, the Petitioner alone had not submitted the same, for the reasons best known to the Petitioner. 9. I submit that this Writ Petition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, since the selected candidates were not made parties to this Writ Petition." 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned communication of the 1st respondent is not an order, rejecting the claim of petitioner, whereas it is only an information about non-availability of the petitioner at the address given by her. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner has not furnished required details so as to enable him to visit the place for ascertaining the real position and the 1st respondent himself has referred to 10 documents annexed by the petitioner, while applying for the latest community certificate. Because the petitioner was not available at the time of his visit and inspection, the right of the petitioner in obtaining the latest community certificate cannot be discarded so as to prevent the socially and economically weaker section to come up in life and therefore, the order of the 1st respondent is vitiated in law. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the third respondent has hastily taken a decision to cancel the candidature of petitioner for appointment to the post of Peon / Hamal and such a decision is totally against the proposition of law. 8. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2 has controverted the submissions of the learned Senior Counselinter alia contending that the petitioner is residing in Pollachi and as per rules, the respondent has to inspect the place independently in order to verify truthfulness of the claim of the petitioner in respect of issuance of ST community certificate. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner was not at all residing at the address given by her and therefore, the impugned communication of the 1st respondent cannot be faulted with. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner was not at all residing at the address given by her and therefore, the impugned communication of the 1st respondent cannot be faulted with. He has submitted that the main purpose of independent visit of the 1st respondent is to assert himself the genuineness of the demand of petitioner and onus probandi (burden of proof) lies solely on the part of petitioner by producing the details, viz., origin of her parents, correct residential proof etc to the 1st respondent at the time of his inspection and in absence of basic things for assertion, it cannot be said that there is infirmity with the communication of the 1st respondent. 9. The counsel for R3 has submitted that the petitioner, in stead of producing her latest community certificate, has addressed letters to the 3rd respondent on 14.09.2009 and 26.09.2009 respectively, narrating the steps taken by her to obtain the said certificate and requesting to offer the post of Peon / Hamal to her alone. However, the production of latest community certificate was the requirement to be fulfilled for the proof of her real community and the request of petitioner in keeping the post vacant for longer time, cannot be adhered to endlessly, as it was the requirement for the services of the Bank. He has also submitted that subsequently, her candidature was cancelled and she has herself admitted the same in the typedset of papers. Therefore, no relief can be sought for as against the third respondent Bank. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition shows that the petitioner was born to Chinnasamy and Sundalai Ammal on 17.12.1981 and her father belonged to Kattunaicken Community by birth, residing at B.S.R.Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District for several past years. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement published in local dailies on 26.09.2008, calling for applications to the post of Peon / Hamal in the 3rd respondent Bank, she applied for the same and participated in the interview on 22.04.2009. It is also not disputed that she has come out successful in the interview, consequent to which, she was referred to the medical test, besides directing her to produce the latest community certificate. It is also not disputed that she has come out successful in the interview, consequent to which, she was referred to the medical test, besides directing her to produce the latest community certificate. The root cause for the entire problem arose at this point of time, as she had not submitted her latest community certificate even after 8 months as averred by the 3rd respondent in paragraph no.6 of the counter. As demanded by the 3rd respondent, though she applied to the 1st respondent for issuance of the latest community certificate, which was received by the 1st respondent on 10.08.2009, at the time of conducting spot enquiry at Door No.77, P.S.R. Road, Perandammal Street, Sivakasi Town on 11.06.2010, owing to her absence in the said address furnished by her, the factum of her caste was not ascertained and the same was duly intimated to the 3rd respondent vide Letter No.D.Dis.B3/5554/2009, dated 11.06.2010. The 3rd respondent, on the basis of the communication of the 1st respondent, had issued a letter dated 09.07.2010, cancelling her candidature and name from the panel. 12. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of issuance of ST community certificate, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority to verify the genunity of the claim, has to ascertain the latest position, based on which, the authorities concerned, engaged in recruitment process will have to proceed further and finalize the matter. 13. In the case on hand, no doubt is cast upon the receipt of application from the petitioner for issuance of latest community certificate, based on which, inspection conducted by the 1st respondent at the address given by the petitioner is also not disputed. The 1st respondent alone is empowered to visit the place and verify not only with the petitioner, but also with relatives of petitioner in order to get truthfulness in the matter and his duty is not ended up with mere assertion of residential proof of petitioner. Moreover, non-availability of petitioner at the given address was communicated to the third respondent Bank as well as to the petitioner, who is now residing at Pollachi, Coimbatore District. Moreover, non-availability of petitioner at the given address was communicated to the third respondent Bank as well as to the petitioner, who is now residing at Pollachi, Coimbatore District. Once the competent authority is aware of the fact of petitioner living outside the locality of inspection, it is obligatory on his part to give prior intimation enabling her to be present at the time of inspection to prove her bonafide, thereby affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her contention. The 1st respondent would have communicated his decision to the third respondent after complying with the procedures in the matter of verification, pertaining to the case of community certificate. Instead, he has hastily taken a decision in one way or the other on his own and informed the same to the 3rd respondent without following any procedure as contemplated under the Revenue Manuals and the Government Orders in this regard. Therefore, it can be easily construed as violation of principles of natural justice and in view of the same, the matter requires reappraisal. 14. Thus, for all the above reasons, the impugned order of communication dated 11.06.2010 cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry into the matter in the manner as provided in the Revenue Manuals for verification of community certificate. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. At the same time, we do not find any fault with the impugned letter dated 17.03.2010 of the third respondent, extending 15 days' time for production of the latest community certificate as also informing of cancellation of her candidature to fill up the post by offering to the next candidate in the empanelled list in the event of her failure to do so. Since the said order was a time bound order by duly giving fair opportunity to the petitioner, the action of the third respondent Bank is perfectly valid in law and needs no interference by this Court. 16. With the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.