Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.B.Manokaran, learned counsel for Mr.Krishna Ravindran learned counsel for R2. 2. The writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in No.12228/CVIII/2007-12 dated 23.02.2011 with the consequential prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to disburse the gratuity amount and the arrears of pension amount and continue to disburse the monthly pension to the petitioner. 3. The facts, pleaded by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, are as under: i) The petitioner belongs to Hindu Kurumans community, which is one of the communities listed as a schedule tribe under the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950 passed byirtue of the President by the Powers conferred on him under Article 342 of the Constitution of India and listed as such under Central Act 108/76. He qualified in ITI Technician course in the ITI Institute, Tiruvannamalai and based on his qualification, he was selected and appointed as a Charge Man (Mechanical) in the Chennai Port Trust with effect from 09.06.1980 under the quota reserved for Schedule Tribes (ST). ii) At the time of his appointment, he had produced a community certificate obtained from his native taluk,iz., Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District in support of his claim and his services were confirmed and subsequently, he was promoted as Sr.Charge Man with effect from 13.12.1984. Thereafter, he was again promoted as Foreman during the year 2001. In the meanwhile, due to a complaint forwarded by a third party, namely, an Union of his department, an enquiry was commenced with regard to the genuineness of his community status in the year 2002 by the then District Collector, Dharmapuri and subsequently, an enquiry was also conducted by the District Leveligilance Committee, resulting in passing of an adverse order, which was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.11852 of 2002. Iniew of the adverse order dated 05.04.2002, his services were terminated and subsequently, due to the order of this Court, he was reinstated with effect from 09.04.2002. Iniew of the adverse order dated 05.04.2002, his services were terminated and subsequently, due to the order of this Court, he was reinstated with effect from 09.04.2002. Thereafter, in further two rounds of litigations both in writ appeal and writ petition, he had succeeded and the matter was once again remitted for fresh disposal to the 1st respondent committee; iii) He has submitted that the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry during January / February 2011. In the enquiry, he has produced the following documents in support of his claim: “1. Proceedings dated 28.04.2008 of the Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee in respect of his relative one G.Vani wherein she has been confirmed as belonging to Kurumans Community. In the said order, it is clearly explained that even though her father's school record disclosed that he is described as 'kurumbar' which is most backward class, the mistake in the enquiry need not be considered andiews of anthropologist is accepted and she is declared as kurumans. 2. Community Certificate of Mr.R.Saravanan, who is his paternal uncle Mr.Kullappan's grandson wherein he has been described as belonging to kurumans community. 3. Transfer certificate of his daughter Ms.G.Tamil Selvi wherein she has been described as beloning to kurumans community. 4. Transfer certificate of his son Mr.G.Deepak, wherein he has been described as belonging to Hindu, ST. 5. Community certificate of one Mr.Vinoth, who is her paternal uncle Mr.Kuppan's grandson, wherein he has been described as belonging to kurumans community. 6. Sale deed of the year 1982, wherein Ms.Chinnathayammal, who is her maternal uncle's wife and Ms.Rathinam, who is his paternal uncle Mr.Ramu's wife have been described as belonging to kurumans community. 7. His community certificate issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar to the effect that he belongs to kurumans community. 8. Community certificate of Mr.C.Senthilkumar, who is his paternal aunt Ms.Kulliammal's grandson dated 17.06.1996, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri. 9. Transfer certificate of his wife Ms.Kanchana, wherein she has been described as belonging to kurumans community. 10. Community certificate of Ms.Aruna, who is his maternal Mr.Krishnan's younger daughter issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, wherein she has been described as belonging to kurumans community. 11. 9. Transfer certificate of his wife Ms.Kanchana, wherein she has been described as belonging to kurumans community. 10. Community certificate of Ms.Aruna, who is his maternal Mr.Krishnan's younger daughter issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, wherein she has been described as belonging to kurumans community. 11. Community certificate dated 15.06.2009 of Ms.Geetha, who is his material aunt Ms.Chinnappa's granddaughter.” iv) Apart from the production of the above mentioned documents, the first respondent isery much aware about the availability of the detailed enquiry report submitted by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur. It is pertinent to note that a five Member Committee was constituted by the State Government, which includes an Anthropologist and the said Committee after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report to the effect that around 33 families, who are residing in A.Pallipatty belongs to kurumans community, even though in olden days, the members of the said families used to describe themselves as “kurubars''. A.Pallipattiillage originally belonged to Harur taluk which is now coming under the Pappireddipatti taluk. The committee, which was constituted by the Government to conduct a detailed enquiry, submitted the said report based on the customs and cultural behaviour of his community people and ultimately held that the cultural factors confirm that the above said families, who are all his relatives, belong to kurumans community. The said report was communicated by the Anthropologist attached to the University of Madras along with her letter dated 28.02.2008 to the then District Collector, Dharmapuri District. Along with the report, the committee has mentioned that 18 individuals, who had been named therein are entitled for the issuance of community certificate as kurumans. All the 18 persons are related to him in one way or the other, to cite an example, he is furnishing details of such persons, who are directly related to him. Out of 18 persons, one Mr.Vinod, S/o.Gopal (Sl.No.10) is none else than his paternal grandfather's elder brother by name Mr.Kuppan's grandson (son's son); Ms.Pavithira, D/o.Valieeswaran (Sl.No.13) and Mr.Gowdham, S/o.Valieeswaran (Sl.No.14) are none else than his maternal uncle Mr.Krishnan's grand children. Similarly, another individual by name Mr.Gokul, S/o.Kalaiyarasan (Sl.No.15) is none else than his material uncle Mr.Krishnan's grandson. One Saranyam D/o.Selvam (Sl.No.16) and Suruthi, D/o.Selvam (Sl.No.17) are also the grand children of his maternal uncle. The above relationship can be ascertained through the revenue authorities of hisillage. Similarly, another individual by name Mr.Gokul, S/o.Kalaiyarasan (Sl.No.15) is none else than his material uncle Mr.Krishnan's grandson. One Saranyam D/o.Selvam (Sl.No.16) and Suruthi, D/o.Selvam (Sl.No.17) are also the grand children of his maternal uncle. The above relationship can be ascertained through the revenue authorities of hisillage. v) He has further submitted that without considering any of the documents, the 1st respondentide impugned proceedings dated 23.02.2011 has held that he does not belong to kurumans community. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent has withheld his pension as well as his gratuity amount, even though he has put in nearly 31 years of service. vi) It is stated by the petitioner that he has retired from service on 31.01.2011 and after his retirement, his provident fund alone was disbursed and he was given only one month's pension in February, 2011 and from March 2011 onwards, the 2nd respondent's office refused to disburse his pension and gratuity amount. Having left with no other alternative, he has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following grounds: a) that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is illegal, unlawful and unsustainable in law as much as the 1st respondent's office has not considered any of thealuable documents produced by him as well as the existing reports in respect of his relatives, who have been declared as kurumans community; b) that the community kurumbars has not been notified as one of the scheduled tribe communities and in fact, in olden days his community people used to describe themselves as kurumbars, in a colloquial term due to their ignorance, which cannot be put against him. In fact, the scheduled tribe order was subsequently published widely after the introduction of the Central Act, 108 of 1976 and it is only thereafter his relatives used to indicate themselves as kurumans in all the documents; c) that the respondents failed to take into account the report, wherein name of 18 individuals have been specifically recommended for issuance of community certificate and several of them are closely related to him. In the said report, theiew of the Anthropologist have been accepted, which are extracted as hereunder: “The Anthropologist in his spot enquiry report ensured that Tmt.G.Vani belongs to kurumans scheduled tripe community. In the said report, theiew of the Anthropologist have been accepted, which are extracted as hereunder: “The Anthropologist in his spot enquiry report ensured that Tmt.G.Vani belongs to kurumans scheduled tripe community. During the enquiry of State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Anthropologist has confirmed that they reflected the cultural backgrounds, habitual activities life style, customs, etc., of Hindu kurumans, scheduled tribe people. During the enquiry of State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Anthropologist has confirmed that they reflected the cultural backgrounds, habitual activities life style, customs, etc., of Hindu kurumans, scheduled tribe people. The committee therefore confirmed that the kurumans scheduled tribe community certificate obtained by the individual from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri on 31.12.1994 is genuine.” d) that even though the earlier committee has accepted the report of the Anthropologist and declared that the above mentioned Selvi G.Vani belonged to scheduled tribe community, the present committee in the impugned order has suppressed the favourable report of the Anthropologist and negatived the petitioner's claim and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “The Anthropologist a member of the State Level Scrutiny Committee has also examined the cultural aspects and traditionalocations and customs of the individual during the enquiry which revealed that he does not belong to Hindu 'kurumans' scheduled tribe community.” e) that even though the impugned order proceeds as above, on an application taken out by the petitioner through RTI Act, the report of the Anthropologist was obtained which proceeds to the effect that the petitioner's social-cultural habits discloses that he possesses tribal characters and as such, the petitioner is eligible to get tribal community certificate as 'kurumans' and that it is not known as to why the 1st respondent committee, which is discharging quasi-judicial function is acting in an unfair false manner by suppressing the favourable report of the Anthropologist and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside; f) that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is passed based on the entry in the school records, which indicated originally in the year 1962 as 'kurumbar', which entry was carried out in the subsequent years due to the negligence of the petitioner's parents, who are illiterates, even though the report of the Anthropologist is in favour of the petitioner and that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to withhold the pension as well as the gratuity amount inasmuch as the petitioner had completed his service even before the adverse order of the 1st respondent, which came into existence only after retirement of the petitioner from the services; g) that the petitioner has successfully completed his entire service on 31.01.2011 and the 2nd respondent cannot place reliance upon the subsequent report dated 23.02.2011 of the 1st respondent, thereby, withholding his monthly pension as well as gratuity, that the 2nd respondent, having disbursed the provident fund amount and also the pension amount for the month of February, 2011, cannot withhold the monthly pension as well as the gratuity amount, which is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful and that the 1st respondent failed to take note of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 29.10.2010 in W.P.No.19465 to 29467 of 2010 observed that an individual's claim cannot be rejected on the ground that they were described as 'kurumbar' community. The relevant portion is extracted as hereunder: “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 respondent that the petitioners belong to 'kurumbar' community cannot be sustained and as a necessary corollary, the same cannot be the reason for rejecting the request of the petitioners for issuance of kurumans community certificate.” Therefore, it is prayed by the petitioner that the writ petition may be allowed and the consequential direction be issued. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as under: “3. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained Hindu 'Kurumans' Scheduled Tribes Community Certificate from the Head quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Harur taluk, Dharmapuri District on dated : 12.10.1979. Based on the above certificate he got appointment in the Chennai Port Trust as Chargemen under Scheduled Tribes quota with effect from 09.06.1980. 4. It is further submitted during the course of the employment on the basis of the complaint received from the third party, the employer referred the Community Certificate forerification. Originally it was forwarded to District Collector, Dharmapuri. He referred the same to the Districtigilance Committee for conducting the enquiry on 13.03.2002 the committee after holding the enquiry has given the findings as such that the Community Certificate issued by the authority was cancelled. To that effect the employer terminated her service from 05.04.2002. The Writ Petitioner challenged the above order by way of Writ Petition No.11852/2002. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras dismiss the Writ Petition on 09.04.2002 and a direction was issued to the Writ Petitioner to move the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 5. At this juncture it is further submitted that without approaching the State Level Scrutiny Committee the Writ Petitioner filed an Writ Appeal No.1376/2002 against the Writ Petition No.11852/2002 on 26.07.2005 and the said Appeal was disposed off with direction and quashed the order of the Districtigilance Committee. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service under superannuation with effect from 31.01.2011. 6. It is further stated that the matter was taken up by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service under superannuation with effect from 31.01.2011. 6. It is further stated that the matter was taken up by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. After holding due enquiry the State Level Scrutiny Committee passed an order dated: 23.02.2011 by incorporating that the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Tahsildar, Harur is not a genuine one. The impugned order has been passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee by proceedings No.12228/CVIII/2007-12 dated: 23.02.2011. 7. It is further submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee after conducting detailed enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein and went through the documents filed by the petitioner herein before the committee, such as original school admission register, Transfer Certificate of the petitioner wherein it has been recorded as 'Kurumbar' during the year of 1962, 1969 and 1970. The committee after obtaining the report of the Anthropologist unanimously decided that the Writ Petitioner does not belong to 'Kurumans' community. 8. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition and thus render justice.” 5. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent / Chennai Port Trust in the counter affidavit reads as follows: “1. I state that I am working as Secretary in the 2nd respondent Port and as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case through records and I am duly authorized to file this Counter Affidavit on behalf of 2nd Respondent. I deny all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition except those that are admitted hereunder. 2. I submit as regard to the averments in paras 3 and 4, admittedly petitioner was appointed as Chargeman in the Trust against theacancy reserved for Schedule Tribe (ST) with effect from 9.6.1980. At the time of his appointment he has produced a copy of community certificate attested byeterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pappireddipatty, wherein it is certified that he belongs to 'Kurumans', a ST community. This respondent received a complaint that the petitioner actually belongs to Forward Community, his Community Certificate was initially referred to District Collector of Dharmapuri forerification and report on the genuineness of the individual's Community Certificate on 09.01.1993. The District Committee by its proceedings dated 13.03.2002 had ordered to cancel the Petitioner's ST Community Certificate. This respondent received a complaint that the petitioner actually belongs to Forward Community, his Community Certificate was initially referred to District Collector of Dharmapuri forerification and report on the genuineness of the individual's Community Certificate on 09.01.1993. The District Committee by its proceedings dated 13.03.2002 had ordered to cancel the Petitioner's ST Community Certificate. It is submitted that based on the DVC's proceedings dated 13.03.2002 for Petitioner's service at the 2nd Respondent Port was terminated w.e.f. 05.04.2002. The petitioner filed W.P.No.11852 of 2002 and WPMP Nos.15954 & 15955 of 2002 against the order of termination, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Dharmapuri. The High Court dismissed the W.P. By its orders dated 09.04.2002 and has directed the Petitioner to move to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and stayed the impugned proceedings for a period of six weeks. As per the above Court order, the Petitioner/employee was re-instated with effect from 22.04.2002 by the 2nd Respondent Port. Instead of pursuing the issue with the State Level Scrutiny Committee the petitioner again filed subsequent Writ Appeal No.1326/02 against the order in W.P.No.11852 of 2002 and took out WAMP No.2404 of 2002 in which the Hon'ble High Court granted interim stay on 30.04.2002 pending disposal of the above appeal. The order of the Hon'ble High Court in WPMP Nos.15954 & 15955 in WP No.11852 of 2002 isery clear that the petitioner may move to the State Level Scrutiny Committee which was the authority competent to pass final orders on theeracity of the community certificate with interim stay to Chennai Port Trust not to take any action on the orders of Districtigilance Committee for six weeks. By order dated 26.07.2005, the appeal was disposed again with direction that the Districtigilance Committee consisting of two members has no authority to pass the impugned order and the order impugned in the writ petition has to be quashed and this order is without prejudice to any action in future to be taken by the concerned authority based on the Community Certificate. Because of the subsequent Writ Petitions, the petitioner had restrained the authorities fromerification as well as relevant disciplinary action. 3. I submit that as regard to the averments in para 5, 6 & 7, it is stated that the Petitioner retired under Superannuation with effect from 31.01.2011. Because of the subsequent Writ Petitions, the petitioner had restrained the authorities fromerification as well as relevant disciplinary action. 3. I submit that as regard to the averments in para 5, 6 & 7, it is stated that the Petitioner retired under Superannuation with effect from 31.01.2011. The Pension was withheld since the State Level Scrutiny Committee has also confirmed that 'Kurumans' Scheduled Tribes Community Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Tahsildar, Harur is not a genuine one by its proceedings No.12228/CVIII/2007-12 dated 23.02.2011. 4. I submit that as regard to the grounds, none of the grounds raised by the petitioner is either sustainable in law or on facts. As regard to Ground K, as stated supra the petitioner was initially appointed in the office of the 2nd respondent against theacancy reserved for ST. Further his community certificate was cancelled by DVC and as per the Hon'ble High Court's orders the matter was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Hence the Petitioner was allowed to retire subject to the condition that the final settlement will be subject to outcome of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Hence the Petitioner's pension and gratuity have been withheld as per the prevailing guidelines. With regard to Ground L, The first respondent is an authority constituted by Government of Tamil Nadu as per the procedure laid down by the Apex Court of India in its judgment. As regard to Ground M, the final order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee was issued on 23.02.2011, hence the pension was stopped from the month of March 2011. 5. I am advised to state that as per Regulation Nos.55 and 56 of the Chennai Port Trust (pension) Regulations, 1987, the 2nd Respondent herein has the power to withhold or withdraw pension to an employee, if the employee if found guilty of any grave misconduct. Hence, iniew of the community certificate used to obtain employment in the Port has been found to be not genuine the 2nd Respondent is empowered to withdraw the pension drawn by the Petitioner as per the said regulations. In fact these regulations are in consonance with the CCS (pension) Rules 1972. Further, the dispute has been going on for several years and the Petitioner benefitted during the period by continuing in employment. 6. In fact these regulations are in consonance with the CCS (pension) Rules 1972. Further, the dispute has been going on for several years and the Petitioner benefitted during the period by continuing in employment. 6. I submit that as regard to the averments in paras 8, 9 and 19, the Districtigilance Committeeide its proceedings dated 13.03.2002 has cancelled the petitioner's ST Community Certificate. Subsequently, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennaiide its proceedings No.12228/CVIII/2007-12 dated 23.02.2011 has confirmed that 'Kurumans' Scheduled Tribes Community Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Tahsildar, Harur is not a genuine one. Hence the payment of pension and gratuity to the Petitioner has been stopped. Iniew of the above facts the petitioner is deemed to be dismissed from service and he was not entitled for any benefits as claimed by him.' 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee / 1st respondent herein has not taken into account all the relevant documents for consideration and also has not carefully and independently examined the statement and documentary evidence furnished by the petitioner. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpures. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1338 , he has contended that the Committee has to evaluate all the material facts and evidence placed before it and in absence of such evaluation, the Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant materials or has not applied its mind to the facts, which have led the committee to ultimately record the finding. But, there was no such procedure followed by the Committee before arriving at the conclusion. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent isitiated in law. 7. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader has, while refuting the averments and also producing the original documents, contended that every document has been carefully scrutinized by the Committee in the manner as contemplated, which is evident onerification of records. It is his further contention that based on the report of the Anthropologist, the request of the petitioner for issuance of Kurumans Community Certificate stood rejected. Thus, there is no legal infirmity with the decision rendered by the 1st respondent. 8. It is his further contention that based on the report of the Anthropologist, the request of the petitioner for issuance of Kurumans Community Certificate stood rejected. Thus, there is no legal infirmity with the decision rendered by the 1st respondent. 8. In addition to the above defence by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, under whom the petitioner was employed, has controverted that on the basis of the complaint submitted by the third party / Union, his community certificate was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee forerification. He has contended that the petitioner has already attained superannuation and based on the report of the Committee dated 23.02.2011, the 2nd respondent has withheld the pension as per Chennai Port Trust (Pension) Regulations, 1987. 9. We have heard the learned counsel on either side,erified the original records and also the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. An analysis of the entire facts would reveal that the petitioner got employment with the 2nd respondent as Chargeman against theacancy reserved for Schedule Tribe (ST) with effect from 09.06.1980 on production of a copy of community certificate in proof thereof, attested byeterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pappireddipatty. Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Chargeman with effect from 13.12.1984. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent / Port Trust had requested the District Collector, being Chairman of the District Level Scrutiny Committee toerify the genuineness of the community certificate on account of the complaint received from one third party, who in turn referred the matter to the competent authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to enquire into the matter. On receipt of report from the said RDO, the District Level Scrutiny Committee cancelled the Kurumans community certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar on 30.10.1979 by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Level Scrutiny Committee, if so desired. 11. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which in turn requested the personal appearance of the petitioner onarious dates along with supporting documents in proof of his claim. 11. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which in turn requested the personal appearance of the petitioner onarious dates along with supporting documents in proof of his claim. Accordingly, the petitioner also appeared before the said Committee and the Committee haserified the following certificates and documents produced by the concerned individuals: i) The Head Master of Panchayat Union Middle School, Pallipatti, pappireddipatti Union appearing before the Committee on 11.02.2011 and produced the original School Admission Register of the said School in which the community of the petitioner has been recorded as 'Kurumbar' during the year 1962 (Sl.No.481); ii) The Staff of the Government Higher Secondary School, Adikarapatti, Dharmapuri appeared before the Committee on 11.02.2011 and produced the details of the school records and copy of the attested transfer certificate in which his community has been recorded as “Kurumbar” during the year 1969-70 (Admission No.115, T.C.No.46/69-70). 12. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, besides examining the cultural aspects, traditionalocations and customs of the petitioner, had also carefully and independently gone through all the records referred to above as also theiews of the Anthropologist and finally come to the conclusion that Thiru K.Gopal, petitioner herein, S/o.Kuppan does not belong to “Kurumans” Schedule Tribes Community, thereby, confirming the order of the District Level Scrutiny Committee to the effect that the Community Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Harur is not a genuine one. 13. When theery same issue, which arose for consideration with regard to the question as to whether the certificate of Kurumbar can be issued and the said community is in existence in the State of Tamil Nadu, before a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of E.mani and anothers. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai and others in W.P.Nos.25963 & 25964 of 2013, decided on 25.11.2013, this Court observed the following: “7. In this regard, it is to be noticed that this Court by order dated 22.11.13 has passed the following order, wherein reference has also been made to the previous order dated 4.11.2013, which is extracted hereunder :- “We have heard the learned Advocate General on the issue. In this regard, it is to be noticed that this Court by order dated 22.11.13 has passed the following order, wherein reference has also been made to the previous order dated 4.11.2013, which is extracted hereunder :- “We have heard the learned Advocate General on the issue. It was brought to the attention of this Court that the Government of Tamil Nadu, in Letter No.3100 ADW-10/2004-1 dated 21.08.2006, addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, Sastri Bhavan, which reads as under :- “The Government of Tamil Nadu have been examining the question of inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes the synonymous names to the Kurumans Scheduled Tribes community such as Kuruma, Kuruman, Kurumba, Kurumba Gounder, Kurumban and Kurumbar (as detailed in the enclosed study report) pertaining to Tamil Nadu and accordingly recommend to Government of India in this Government 's letter first cited for issue of necessary orders in the matter. 2. In its letter third cited, the Government of India have requested to make detailed ethnographic studies keeping iniew the requisite criteria for inclusion in the list of Scheduled tribes and also to send theiews/comments of this Government. 3. The Government would like to place the following before the Government of India, for their kind consideration and early orders :- The Director, Tribal Research Centre, Ooty was entrusted with the task of taking up the ethnological study on the communities under recommendation. Anthropological Ethnographic details about the specific community people, studied above, in the Districts of Dharmapuri,ellore and Salem reveals the fact that they belong to Kurumba, Kurumbar or Kurumans. The study reveals that on the basis of social structure clan organization and the cycle rituals, all these names like KURUMBA, KURIMBAR AND KURUMANS are one and the same community. The KURUMBA, KURUMBAR AND KURUMANS are originally identical with the shepherd Kurumbans and their present habitat and traditional occupation reveals that they belong to same community. The present study Anthropological conclusions and the observations of earlier writers like Thurston, A.Aiyappan, K.S.Singh, etc., reveals that Kurumba, Kurumbar and Kurumans are synonyms to each other and they belong to same community. The study concludes that this community people are eligible to Scheduled Tribes status under the name KURUMANS. The present study Anthropological conclusions and the observations of earlier writers like Thurston, A.Aiyappan, K.S.Singh, etc., reveals that Kurumba, Kurumbar and Kurumans are synonyms to each other and they belong to same community. The study concludes that this community people are eligible to Scheduled Tribes status under the name KURUMANS. The community KURUMBAS (in the Nilgiris District) and Scheduled Tribes only in Nilgiris District but the studied people under the name KURUMANS can be identified as a Scheduled Tribes throughout Tamil Nadu. Again it is to be noted here that KURUMBA GOUNDER in the list of Backward Class throughout the State of Tamil Nadu and KURUMBA (in the list of Most Backward Class throughout the State of Tamil Nadu) and the KURUMANS are one and the same and it is concluded here that KURUMBA, KURUMBAR and KURUMANS can be identified as eligible to get Scheduled Tribes status under the name KURUMANS. The study of the Director, Tribal Research Centre, Ooty further reveals that te communities like Kuruma, Kuruman, Kurumba, Kurumba Gounder, Kurumban and Kurumbar are identical to each other and these names are synonym names to the community of KURUMANS and therefore these communities KURUMA, KURUMAN, KURUMBA, KURUMBA GOWNDER, KURUMBAN and KURUMBAR may be brought under KURUMANS in the list of Scheduled Tribes. A copy of the detailed study report in this regard is enclosed. 4. I would therefor fervently request you to use your good offices and bestow your personal intervention to take appropriate steps for inclusion in the list of the Scheduled Tribes, the synonymous names of the KURUMANS SCHEDULED TRIBES SUCH AS KURUMA, KURUMAN, KURUMBA, KURUMBA GOUNDER, KURUMBAN AND KURUMBAR communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu while moving consolidated amendment as envisaged under Article 341 (2), 342 (2) of the Constitution of India. 2. 2. In reply to the above letter of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Tribal Affairs Department of the Government of India,ide letter dated 8.4.09, rejected the request of the Government of Tamil Nadu, which is extracted hereunder :- Sir, I am directed to refer to the proposal of the State Government of Tamil Nadu for inclusion of above communities in the ST list of Tamil Nadu and to say that the proposal have been processed as per modalities approved in June, 1999 by the Government for deciding claims for inclusion in, exclusion from and other modifications in the orders specifying list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (copy enclosed). The RGIide their D.O. Letter No.8/1/2007-SS (Tamil Nadu) dated 22-3-07 supported the inclusion of Kuruman as synonym of Kurumans ST of Tamil Nadu; but did not support the inclusion of Kuruma, Kurumba, Kurumba Gounder, Kurumban and Kurumbar as synonyms of Kurumans ST of Tamil Nadu. The RGI has again reiterated its commendside their D.O. Letter No.8/1/2007-SS (Tamil Nadu) dated 14-1-2009, copy enclosed. Hence, the proposal for inclusion of communities Kuruma, Kurumba, Kurumba Gounder, Kurumban and Kurumbar as synonyms of Kurumans ST of Tamil Nadu are rejected as per Para (P) of the above cited modalities. Further, it is to inform the Tamil Nadu ST (Malayali) peravai (Chennai) has filed a Writ Petition No.44932 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai against the recommendations of the State Government of Tamil Nadu for inclusion of above cited communities in ST list of Tamil Nadu furnished to the Government of Indiaide letter No.3100/ADW-10 of 2004-1 dated 21.8.06. The para wise comments of this Ministry on the above Writ Petition has been furnished to the State Government of Tamil Nadu with the request to file a Joint Counter Affidavit on behalf of Union of India and the State Government of Tamil Nadu in the matter before the Court,ide letter No.12016/09/08-C&LM-I dated 191-11-08 (copy enclosed). Report of action taken by the State Government of Tamil Nadu is awaited. The above case came up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai on 30.10.08, a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Court is enclosed for ready reference. Report of action taken by the State Government of Tamil Nadu is awaited. The above case came up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai on 30.10.08, a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Court is enclosed for ready reference. It is requested that the action taken/to be taken in the above Writ Petition along with the comments of the State Government regarding inclusion of Kuruman as synonym of Kurumans ST of Tamil Nadu, as supported by RGI may be furnished to this Ministry. 3. In the course of hearing, as has been referred to in our order dated 4.11.2013, we find that claims for issuance of Scheduled Tribe community certificate, more particularly KURUMANS has been rejected on the ground that the parents/relatives of the applicants have been issued with certificates bearing the name KURUMBAR, which, according to the Department, falls under the Most Backward Community. We have earlier stated in the order dated 4.11.2013 that there is no community by name KURUMBAR in the Presidential Notification and such a finding is also found in the earlier Bench decision of this Court in W.P. No.3233/2011 dated 11.2.2011. We have set out the reasons in more detail in our order dated 4.11.13, which is reproduced hereinbelow for reference :- It has come to the knowledge of this Court that several claims for issuance of community certificates by persons belonging to 'Kurumba' or 'Kurumbans' community are being rejected by the Revenue Division Officer, the competent authority, on the premise that the applicants in each one of the cases belongs to 'Kurumbar' community, which is a Most Backward Community. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader produced a list annexed to the Presidential Notification containing the details of communities falling under Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Most Backward Class, etc., downloaded from the internet. On going through the list of Most Backward Class communities, Serial No.17 refers to 'Kurumba' community. There is no 'Kurumbar' community in Most Backward Class list. 3. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench headed by D.Murugesan, J., as His Lordship then was, in W.P.No.3233 of 2011, and in the order dated 11.2.2011, the Division Bench observed as under: "4. There is no 'Kurumbar' community in Most Backward Class list. 3. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench headed by D.Murugesan, J., as His Lordship then was, in W.P.No.3233 of 2011, and in the order dated 11.2.2011, the Division Bench observed as under: "4. As far as the second contention is concerned, we are of the considerediew that the community known as Kurumbar is not the one notified under the Presidential Notification and therefore, the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the request for Community Certificate." 4. Similarly, in W.P.No.19885 of 2010, another Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.10.2010, 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. 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." 4. It has come to the notice of this Court that community certificates are issued by the competent authority by showing the community name as 'Kurumbar'. If the said community is not specified under the Presidential Notification, we fail to understand as to how the competent authority can issue certificates showing the name as 'Kurumbar' and also rely upon such certificates said to have been issued in favour of one or other person, more particularly the relatives of the applicants, to deny the claim of issuance of community certificate under the category 'Kurumba' or 'Kurumbans' community. 5. If this fact is not disputed, there is a need to issue a specific direction to the Government to withdraw all the community certificates issued stating the community as 'Kurumbar' by a common order. The confusion that arises out of the name 'Kurumbar' community gives rise to series of litigations and that can be avoided. 6. 5. If this fact is not disputed, there is a need to issue a specific direction to the Government to withdraw all the community certificates issued stating the community as 'Kurumbar' by a common order. The confusion that arises out of the name 'Kurumbar' community gives rise to series of litigations and that can be avoided. 6. It is pointed out by some of the counsel and it is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleaded that number of writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of the competent authority, who have refused to issue community certificates under 'Kurumba' or 'Kurumbans' category on the finding that the applicants in those cases belong to 'Kurumbar' community, which, in fact, is not a notified community under the Presidential Notification. Some of the connected cases are W.P.Nos.16828 of 2011, 31353 and 4941 of 2012, 1807, 2450, 16221 and 20204 of 2013. This anomaly requires to be corrected. 7. A response in this regard should come from the Government on this issue so that number of litigations that arise out of the misconception in the name of the community can be stopped once and for all. We, therefore, direct the learned Advocate General to assist the Court in this regard after getting proper instructions. 4. Further, the letter of the State Government requesting the Central Government to include the word KURUMBAR as one belonging to Scheduled Tribe community, the said request has been rejected by the Central Government. We find that there could be no basis for the certificate bearing the name KURUMBAR (MBC) being taken as a record for the purpose of declining the application, either for issuance of Scheduled Tribe Certificate or for Backward Class/Most Backward Class certificates, because, the Presidential Notification does not include in itself such a name and, therefore, it may not be proper for any authority to refer to the said name in the course of any proceedings. Since the rejection of the Scheduled Tribe Community certificate is primarily based on a finding that the parents or relatives have a KURUMBAR community certificate, it gives rise to filing of number of writ petitions challenging the findings of the original authority on the ground that they are referring to an invalid community, which doesn't find a place in the Presidential Notification and for that reason, the Courts have been repeatedly setting aside such impugned orders and remanding the matters back to the original authority. 5. Nevertheless, we find that this confusion continues to be present in the mind of the competent authorities and in one or other case, we find a plea being taken that the word KURUMBAR has been wrongly used by the authority, where in fact, the claimant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. This plea cannot be accepted from any quarters when there is no community bearing KURUMBAR, and, therefore, the question of issuing a certificate as KURUMBAR under any category, does not arise. 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. Iniew 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 KURUMBAR (Most Backward Class). This exercise, if done, can avoid confusion and litigations atarious 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 leave it to the Government to decide the course of action to be taken to correct this error that has already crept in. The individuals, who are recipients of such certificates are at liberty to work our their remedies in accordance with law if aggrieved by any adverse action that may be taken on those certificates erroneously issued. 8. We leave it to the Government to decide the course of action to be taken to correct this error that has already crept in. The individuals, who are recipients of such certificates are at liberty to work our their remedies in accordance with law if aggrieved by any adverse action that may be taken on those certificates erroneously issued. 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 (MBC) 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 independentlyerify 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. Iniew 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.” 14. 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.” 14. On examining the entire circumstances, what transpires us is that there is no discussion at all about thearious documents relied on by the authorities concerned and unanimously come to the conclusion as to the genuineness of the certificate Once a particular document or certificate is relied on, full reasons have to be recorded in writing as to why such document or certificate got rejected or should not be taken into consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patils. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 was pleased to hold as under: “14. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless founditiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though anotheriew, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.” 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh,s. Laveti Giri and another, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 ,while issuing certain norms and procedures to the Government of India to streamline the issuance of community certificate, had held as follows: “7. 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 envisaged of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. By reason thereof the genuine candidates would be denied admission to professional courses etc. or appointments to office or posts under a State instrumen-talities. By reason thereof the genuine candidates would be denied admission to professional courses etc. or appointments to office or posts under a State instrumen-talities. More often they arc denied social status certificates while ineligible or spurious persons easily would secure them. After falsely gaining entry, resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate to his child. 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 by the Officer like 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 the Directorate concerned. 3. Application forerification 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 (111) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in theerification 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. 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 aigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall 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. Theigilance officer should personallyerify and collect all the fats 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 proforma, 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. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from theigilance 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 theigilance 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. 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 made may be published in theillage 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 claimsis-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 ex- cept 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. 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. 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 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 nonofficial 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 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. 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 he appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission of 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. 8. 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. 8. While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable principles, it is high time that the Government of India would have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout the Constitution and comer the benefits reserved for the real tribals etc. etc., so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio- economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39.” 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, reported in 1990 SCR (2) 843, declared that subject to the law made by Parliament under sub-section (2) of Section 342, the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities specified by the President by a public notification shall be final for the purpose of the Constitution. They are the tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory and that any tribe or tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribe or tribal communities, not specified therein in relation to that State, shall not be Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of the Constitution. 17. It is seen from the affidavit of the petitioner that he has producedarious documents in proof of his claim, such as community certificate of his relative G.Vani, Transfer certificates of his daughter and son showing their community as kurumans, community certificate of his paternal uncle's grandson etc. Therefore, it is pertinent to mention that those certificates would not have been issued in a casual manner withouterification of relevant records and as such, there must be a clear indication as to the denial of considering those documents by the Scrutiny Committees. Moreover, except the documents produced by the petitioner and concerned authorities, nothing has been produced on the side of the Scrutiny Committees to draw a different conclusion. Moreover, except the documents produced by the petitioner and concerned authorities, nothing has been produced on the side of the Scrutiny Committees to draw a different conclusion. It is also our efficacy to show that though the petitioner had produced as much as 11 documents in respect of his claim, neither any document has been perused and given weightage by the respective Scrutiny Committees nor discussed about the relevancy 18. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, without appreciating the probativealue of the documents placed before it, has dismissed the claim of the petitioner by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. Undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the burden heavily lies on the petitioner, who is really in need of such certificate, that does not mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim put forth by the petitioner. On the facts of this case, we are of theiew that the 1st respondent Committee was not right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and for the same reason the order of the 1st respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to set aside. 19. Before parting with, we would like to observe that the concerned authorities in both the District and State Level Scrutiny Committees should deal with the matters pertaining to scrutiny of community certificates in an appropriate manner as per the procedures and principles as contemplated in deciding the issue. Otherwise, the act of the authorities would definitely deprive the downtrodden people so as to come up in life. 20. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent / State Level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration with the direction to them to pass a reasoned and constructive order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.