JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri H.R.Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M.Misra on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R.B.Pradhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Commission. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to direct the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad to conduct the interview of the petitioner of the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010 as a Scheduled Tribe category and thereupon to declare his result; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment against the available vacancies in the Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of the over all marks obtained by the petitioner (written and interview examination) in case the marks obtained by the petitioner is found higher than the last selected candidate of Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment over and above the candidates finally selected in the Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of over all marks secured by the petitioner on the basis of written and interview examination in Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010;” 3. On 9th May, 2014, this Court passed the following interim order. “Heard Sri H.R.Misra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the U.P.Public Service Commission as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1, the State. The petitioner has come up praying for a Mandamus directing the U.P.Public Service Commission to consider his candidature in respect of interviews to be conducted for the U.P.Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010 under the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner claims himself to be of ‘Nayak’ caste and submits that he is entitled to the benefit of such reservation keeping in view the Presidential Order dated 7th January, 2003, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1-A to the writ petition. The petitioner claims himself to be of ‘Nayak’ caste and submits that he is entitled to the benefit of such reservation keeping in view the Presidential Order dated 7th January, 2003, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1-A to the writ petition. Sri H.R.Misra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the dispute of inclusion of the caste of the petitioner, has already been settled by the Lucknow Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 24th February, 2014, copy whereof has been filed on record and urged that in spite of the same, the State Government has yet not issued any direction in compliance thereof as a consequence whereof the petitioner is suffering recurring loss. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is pursuing this litigation for long, yet he has not been successful in getting the benefit of the said caste as Scheduled Tribe. Sri Misra has also placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in the case of Tamilnadu Public Service Commission v. R.Manikandan and others, 2011 (5) ESC 3146 (paragraphs 26 and 27 (E)] to urge that in view of the status of the petitioner and his caste, as provided in the Presidential Order, the petitioner is entitled to the consideration and appointment as Scheduled Tribe. In our considered opinion, prima facie, the State Government has now to take appropriate steps for intimating the U.P.Public Service Commission about the status of the petitioner and his caste as per the judgement of the Lucknow Bench dated 24.2.2014. The respondent State Government is therefore, put to show-cause and produce the order passed in compliance of the judgment of the Lucknow Bench dated 24.2.2014 by the next date of listing. List on 26.5.2014.” 4. On 26th May, 2014, when this matter was taken up, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, informed that a meeting of the State Level Screening Committee was scheduled to be held on 3rd June, 2014, therefore, the Court adjourned this case to 2nd July, 2014, on which date, the decision so taken was to be communicated to the Court as also to the respondent Commission. 5. 5. Ultimately, on 4th July, 2014, matter was taken up and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel placed before us copy of a letter dated 30th June, 2014 containing the decision taken by the State Level Screening Committee in its meeting dated 3rd June, 2014, which has been taken on record and a perusal thereof reveals that in spite of several rounds of litigations regarding caste status of the petitioner and despite pronouncement of the Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 24th February, 2014 in writ petitions filed by the petitioner earlier, being Writ Petitions (M.B.) Nos. 8803 and 2606 of 2012, the State Level Screening Committee has again, without assigning any plausible reason, taken a decision for re-enquiry at the local level and has accordingly issued directions to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj. 6. We are constrained to observe that the decision so taken by the State Level Screening Committee is bereft of any valid reason, therefore, we proceed to decide this case. 7. Coming to the facts of this case, it appears that the petitioner was issued a caste certificate on 1st November, 2007 declaring him to be a scheduled tribe being ‘Nayak’, on the basis whereof, he applied for the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2010 as a scheduled tribe candidate. 8. On 18th November, 2008, said caste certificate was cancelled by the Tehsildar. 9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7218 (SS) of 2008 before Lucknow Bench of this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary Social Welfare to decide petitioner’s representation and look into his grievances. 10. In the mean time, the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination held by the Commission but due to uncertainty about his caste status, he was not allowed to appear in the interview. 11. However, in pursuance of the direction dated 19.11.2008 of Lucknow Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 7218 (SS) of 2008, matter was placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which called for a report from the Vigilance Cell in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 . The Vigilance Cell submitted its report in favour of the petitioner whereupon it was decided to get the same verified by the Director Tribal Welfare in terms of paragraph 2 (6) of the Government Order dated 5th January, 1996, which was in accordance with the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 12. The Director, Tribal Welfare submitted a favourable report endorsing the report of the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, on 29th June, 2011, decided that the petitioner was entitled to be issued a caste certificate of scheduled tribe. 12. The Director, Tribal Welfare submitted a favourable report endorsing the report of the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, on 29th June, 2011, decided that the petitioner was entitled to be issued a caste certificate of scheduled tribe. The decision dated 29th June, 2011 is quoted herein-below: ^^ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k& 7218@,l0,l0@2008 jkds'k dqekj uk;d cuke m0 iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 19-11-2008 ds vuqdze esa izeq[k lfpo lekt dY;k.k foHkkx dh v/;{krk esa xfBr LdwVuh desVh dh cSBd fnukad 15-6-2011 dks vk;ksftr dh x;hA mDr cSBd esa funs'kd] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr 'kks/k ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku] m0iz0] y[kuÅ rFkk funs'kd tutkfr fodkl mifLFkr gq, lkFk gh lrdZrk izdks"B ds vij iqfyl v/kh{kd Hkh muifLFkr FksA LdwVuh desVh ds le{k viuk i{k j[kus gsrq izdj.k esa oknh Jh jkds'k dqekj uk;d mifLFkr gq,A 2& bl laca/k esa lfefr }kjk funs'kd fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k ds i= fnukad 28-3-2011 ds ekè;e ls miyC/k djk;h x;h lrdZrk izdks"B dh tkap vk[;k dk laKku fy;k x;kA lrdZrk izdks"B us viuh tkap vk[;k esa Jh jkds'k dqekj uk;d dks vuqlwfpr tutkfr dk izek.ki= fuxZr fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh gSA viuh tkap vk[;k esa muds }kjk lkjka'kr% ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;fgr esa fdlh O;fDr vFkok tuin fo'ks"k ds uk;d tkfr ds O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk vU; tuinksa ds uk;d tkfr ds yksxksa dh rqyuk esa HksnHkko fd;k tkuk lehphu ugha gSA vr% tkap esa m)r lkfFk;ksa ds dFku ,oa vU; lk{; ds izdk'k esa Jh jkds'k dqekj uk;d dks vuq0 tutkfr dk izek.ki= fuxZr fd;k tkuk fu;e fofgr gksxkA 3& mDr rF;ksa ds n`fV"xr lfefr }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZr fy;k x;k fd lrdZrk izdks"B dh tkap vk[;k ds n`f"Vxr funs'kd] tutkfr fodkl] m0iz0 y[kuÅ dkfeZd foHkkx ds 'kklukns'k la[;k& 22@16@92&dk&2@1996&Vh0lh0& III fnukad 05-01-1996 ds izLrj&2 ¼6½ ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djrs gq, uk;d tkfr ds laca/k esa lqlaxr fu;eksa ds ifjizs{; esa Jh jkds'k dqekj uk;d ds tkfr izek.ki= dks lR;kfir djus ds laca/k esa Lor% Li"V vkns'k tkjh djsaA ch0ch0flag funs'kd] cyfoUnj dqekj funs'kd] tutkfr fodkl] izeq[k lfpo] vuq0tkfr m0iz0 y[kuÅ lekt dY;k.k ,oa vuq0tkutkfr foHkkx] 'kks/k ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkk Aforesaid decision was communicated to the Public Service Commission on 20th September, 2011. 13. 13. Pursuant to the said decision, Tehsildar, Farenda vide order dated 16th January, 2012 restored the scheduled tribe caste certificate issued to the petitioner to its original serial No. 3588/01/11/2007. The said decision was also communicated by the petitioner to the Commission for consequential action and consideration of his candidature for the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2010, as the sole hurdle in this regard stood removed. However, the Commission did not do the needful. 14, On 24/27.2.2012, the Director Tribal Welfare on his own re-considered the matter and came to the conclusion that ‘Nayak’ caste belongs to backward class. 15, Here, it is relevant to point out that ‘Nayak’ was included in the list as scheduled tribe only for certain districts of Uttar Pradesh including the district Maharajganj, of which the petitioner was original inhabitant, by means of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the Amendment of 2002) by which relevant constitutional Orders were amended and there is no dispute in this regard. 16. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Director Tribal Welfare, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (M.B.) Nos. 2606 of 2012 before this Court at Lucknow Bench, and said order of Director Tribal Welfare was stayed on 11.4.2012. 17. In the mean time, the State Level Scrutiny Committee took another decision on 26.4.2012 cancelling its earlier decision as also the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. This decision was also challenged by the petitioner before Lucknow Bench of this Court by means of Writ Petition (M.B.) No. 8803 of 2012. 18. Based on the aforesaid decision of the Committee, a show-cause notice was issued by the Commission to the petitioner on 12.10.2012 for having misrepresented and fraudulently appeared in the examination in question as a scheduled tribe candidate. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. 19. As the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination, he filed writ petition No. 41545 of 2013 for provisional consideration of his candidature by the Commission as the matter was being unnecessarily delayed. 20. Writ Petitions (M.B.) Nos. 8803 & 2606 of 2012, which were clubbed together, were heard and finally decided vide judgement and order dated 24.2.2014, whereby decision of the Director Tribal Welfare dated 24/27/2.2012 and the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 26.4.2012, were quashed. 20. Writ Petitions (M.B.) Nos. 8803 & 2606 of 2012, which were clubbed together, were heard and finally decided vide judgement and order dated 24.2.2014, whereby decision of the Director Tribal Welfare dated 24/27/2.2012 and the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 26.4.2012, were quashed. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are being quoted herein-below: “Considered the submissions made by the parties. From the record it transpires that on 8.1.2003, the Parliament inserted Entry 6 declaring ‘NAYAK’ caste as Scheduled Tribe in the specified districts. The relevant portion of the Gazette Notification published on 8.1.2013 reads as under : “6. Gond, Dhuria, Nayak, Ojha, Pathari, Raj Gond (in the districts of Mehrajganj, Siddarth Nagar, Basti, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Mau, Azamgarh, Jonpur, Balia, Gazipur, Varanasi, Mirzapur and Sonbhadra).” Thus, it is clear that so long the Presidential Order is not declared ultra vires, persons belonging to ‘Nayak’ shall continue to be the Scheduled Tribe. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, ( 2001 (1) SCC 4 and State of Maharashtra v. Mana Ahim Jamat Mandal, (2006) 4 SC 98, no enquiry by the State Authorities is permissible to interpret/modify/add the entry of the Presidential Order. It is relevant to point out that the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, 1994 (6) SCC 241 , has held in clear words that once the State Level Scrutiny Committee found the Caste Certificate genuine on the basis of Vigilance Cell Report, the Director or Committee did not have jurisdiction to review the said decision particularly, when no fresh report of Vigilance Cell was called or taken into consideration. Though the Standing Counsel has produced a Government Order, it is of no help as it pertains to the year 2001 and he fails to produce any Government Order where the Nayak Caste has been considered as Scheduled Tribe after amendment. Since the caste of the petitioner has not been considered in light of the aforesaid Notification, the impugned orders are bad in law. Since the caste of the petitioner has not been considered in light of the aforesaid Notification, the impugned orders are bad in law. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 21.6.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.577 (MB) of 2013, order dated 24/27.2.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.2606 (MB) of 2012 and order dated 26.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.8803 (MB) of 2012 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Government for re-consideration of Nayak Caste, which falls in Scheduled Tribe category, in light of the The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002. The State Government shall pass necessary orders in this context within two months, in light of the observations made here-in-above. All the writ petitions are allowed in above terms.” Even after the aforesaid judgment dated 24.2.2014, the respondents did not take consequential action nor did they give consequential benefits to the petitioner. 21. As no decision was taken by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner filed this writ petition wherein an interlocutory order, as quoted above, was passed on 9th May, 2014. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 26th May, 2014 and 2nd July, 2014 but requisite decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee could not be placed before the Court and it was ultimately placed on 4th July, 2014, when the matter was taken up, heard and judgement was reserved. 22. Considering the history of litigation, facts of the case and the settled legal position, as also the fact that the respondents have procrastinated in the matter sufficiently long and have caused grave prejudice to the petitioner jeopardizing his right of fair consideration in the matter of public employment and the benefits of reservation available to him as a scheduled tribe candidate, we did not deem it fit to grant any further time to the State for filing a response. 23. The Supreme Court, way back in the year 1994 laid down the procedure to be followed for determination of the caste status of a person so as to ensure speedy decision in this regard vide its dictum laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the relevant extracts of which are quoted herein-below: “12. 23. The Supreme Court, way back in the year 1994 laid down the procedure to be followed for determination of the caste status of a person so as to ensure speedy decision in this regard vide its dictum laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the relevant extracts of which are quoted herein-below: “12. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spur may ious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the19 Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 13. Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons.” 24. Here, it may also be stated that the directions contained in aforesaid judgement in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), has been affirmed by the Apex Court in its recent pronouncement in the case of Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham and others, (2012) 1 SCC 333 , except direction No. 13 thereof. 25. The State Government also appears to have issued a Government Order dated 5th January, 1996 in keeping with the aforesaid dictum by the Supreme Court. The said Government Order as well as the judgement of the Apex Court referred above, have been taken into consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Gond v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (3) ADJ 595 . 26. In the instant case ‘Nayaks’ were included in the list of scheduled tribe under Article 342 (2) of the Constitution of India by the Amendment of 2002, as already referred earlier and there is no dispute in this regard. 26. In the instant case ‘Nayaks’ were included in the list of scheduled tribe under Article 342 (2) of the Constitution of India by the Amendment of 2002, as already referred earlier and there is no dispute in this regard. It is trite that the aforesaid entries in the aforesaid Constitutional Order, cannot be modified, either by any executive order or by the Court. In view of this, it was not open for the authorities to take the plea that ‘Nayaks’ in district Maharajganj were not scheduled tribe but belong to backward class in view of some Government Order. 27. We have no manner of doubt that once the State Level Scrutiny Committee took a decision on 29.6.11 in the matter, after following due procedure as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), i.e. after calling for a Report of the Vigilance Cell and getting it verified by Director Tribal Welfare, there was no occasion for the Director Tribal Welfare to have undertaken a review subsequently i.e. 24/29.2.12, specially on an absolutely misconceived ground based on a Government Order that ‘Nayaks’ belong to backward class wholly oblivious of the amendment in the Constitutional Order whereby said caste was included in the list of scheduled tribe relating to district Maharajganj in the State of U.P. 28. The aforesaid order of the Director, Tribal Welfare was stayed by the High Court on 11.4.2012, yet the State Level Scrutiny Committee took the decision on 26.11.2012 cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and directing the District Magistrate to act accordingly. The said decision of the Committee has been quashed by the High Court subsequently on 24.2.2014, as referred earlier. 29. A perusal of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), shows that a time frame was prescribed for issuance of the certificate of caste status of a person so that prejudice may not be caused to a genuine person and the fraudsters may not claim benefits which are not due to them and in the above quoted point No. 10 of paragraph 12, provisional admission/appointment was directed to be provided. In the instant case, in spite of decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 29.6.2011, no such provisional consideration was done by the Commission, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner, as such, it is necessary for this Court to undo the wrong done by the respondents. 30. The violation of fundamental right of fair consideration in matters of public employment when established, as in the instant case, the respondents cannot be allowed to go scot free nor the victim be left to suffer merely because the process of examination may have been completed during pendency of the aforesaid litigation. The petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of repeated litigation as a consequence of arbitrary and illegal actions on the part of the respondents. 31. In view of above discussion, it is amply clear that the petitioner who belongs to a scheduled tribe, was entitled to be considered for selection and appointment to the Combined Upper Subordinate Services in pursuance of the examination process initiated in the year 2010, as a scheduled tribe candidate, but the said right and benefit was denied to the petitioner without any justifiable reason. Once the State Level Scrutiny Committee took the aforesaid decision dated 29.6.2011, it was obligatory upon the Commission to have acted accordingly and it should have considered the candidature of the petitioner as a scheduled tribe candidate but this was not done. 32. In this regard the petitioner has submitted that though he was treated differently, others belonging to the same caste were given benefit of reservation. In support of his contention, he has mentioned the name of Rajesh Kumar Nayak, who was declared successful in the examination in question against the posts reserved for the scheduled tribe candidates. Sri Rajesh Kumar Nayak secured 942.41 marks as per the Select List issued by the Commission and has been appointed whereas the petitioner has been denied fair consideration in the aforesaid examination for no justifiable reason. 33. The petitioner has also mentioned in paragraphs 30 to 33 of the writ petition that he was declared successful in the written examination having secured 881.96 marks but was not allowed to appear in the interview for the reason aforesaid. 33. The petitioner has also mentioned in paragraphs 30 to 33 of the writ petition that he was declared successful in the written examination having secured 881.96 marks but was not allowed to appear in the interview for the reason aforesaid. The submission is that in case he would have secured even the minimum 80 out of 200 marks allocated for the interview, he could have secured 961.96 marks, which would have been much more than several finally selected candidates of the scheduled tribe category. 34. Be as it may, this Court is of the opinion that once the State Level Scrutiny Committee vide its decision dated 29.6.2011 held the petitioner entitled to the status of the scheduled tribe and the subsequent decision of the Director Tribal Welfare dated 24/27.2.2012 has been declared without jurisdiction and unsustainable by this Court vide judgement dated 24.2.2014 and the subsequent decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dt. 26.11.2012 has also met the same fate vide the same judgement, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner was rightly issued the caste certificate on 1.11.2007 and he was rightly declared as belonging to the scheduled tribe by the State Level Scrutiny Committee vide its decision dated 29.6.2011, consequently, he is entitled to the benefits of reservation available to the candidates of scheduled tribe category in the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2010 irrespective of the fact that the process of the said examination may have been completed and the appointments may have been made. The respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrongs by taking the plea as raised by the Commission that the examination process was initiated way back in the year 2010. The respondents are under an obligation to make good the wrong committed by them and to rectify their mistake. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the wrongs done by the respondents. 35. The State Level Scrutiny Committee while directing re-inquiry on 30.6.2014, has neither expressed any doubt regarding report of the Vigilance Cell as affirmed by it earlier on 29.6.2011 nor has given any reason for such a decision. Such a resolution is not in terms of the dictum in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra). There cannot be an unending inquiry into the status of petitioner. We therefore, disapprove of the decision dated 30.6.2014 placed before us. Such a resolution is not in terms of the dictum in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra). There cannot be an unending inquiry into the status of petitioner. We therefore, disapprove of the decision dated 30.6.2014 placed before us. The earlier decision dated 29.6.2011 was in accordance with Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra). 36. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is accordingly ordered that the caste certificate of the petitioner as issued in the year 2007 and as affirmed by the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 29.6.2011 and consequential order of the Tehsildar, Farenda dated 16.1.2012, shall stand restored and the petitioner shall be treated as belonging to the scheduled tribe. Consequently, the U.P. Public Service Commission is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2010 under the category of scheduled tribe by holding an interview for the said purpose and assigning appropriate marks accordingly. If after calculating marks obtained by the petitioner, in the said examination, it is found that he has secured more marks than the last selected candidate under the scheduled tribe category or under the general category, then suitable recommendation shall be made, accordingly, to the State Government for the purpose of appointment and the latter shall offer appointment to the petitioner, either against an existing available vacancy relating to the selection of 2010 or against future vacancy, within a reasonable time. The consequences shall follow in accordance with law. 37. Before parting with the case, it may also be clarified that during the course of arguments a letter dated 18th June, 2014 of National Commission for Scheduled Tribes was placed before us by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, which refers to certain caste certificates of scheduled tribes having been issued to Brahmins, Nayaks and Brahmin Ojha community of Uttar Pradesh and based thereon, he submitted that the State Government is seized with the matter and an enquiry is required to be made with regard to the same. The said letter does not refer specifically to the case of the petitioner. The said letter does not refer specifically to the case of the petitioner. In any event, it is always open for the State Government to conduct such enquiries and during such enquiry, if some clinching and conclusive evidence is found to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe, then it shall be open for it to take consequential actions and in that eventuality, the appointment offered to the petitioner, as directed above, shall be treated to be provisional. 38. It is made clear that these directions have been issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and will not be treated as a precedent. 39. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. —————