Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as a security guard trainee, on 9.8.1985, at the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District. At the time of his appointment he had submitted a copy of the S.S.L.C. Book and the Transfer certificate, as proof, to show his community status. In the said records the petitioner is shown to be belonging to `Konda Reddy' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. 3. It has also been stated that the petitioner had applied to the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi, for the issuance of a community certificate stating that he belongs to `Konda Reddy' community, a Scheduled Tribe community. The Tahsildar had informed the petitioner vide his letter, dated 27.4.1985 to make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, for obtaining the necessary certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, vide his letter, dated 9.5.1985, requesting him to issue a community certificate in his favour stating that he belongs to `Konda Reddy' community. The petitioner had also made a similar application to the District Collector, Cuddalore District, vide his letter, dated 12.5.1985. 4. It has been further stated that the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi, had sent a communication to the Revenue Divisional Officer, requesting for the issuance of a community certificate in favour of the petitioner, as prayed for by him. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, vide his letter, dated 21.7.1993, had written a letter to the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi, asking him to conduct an investigation and to submit a report regarding the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to `Konda Reddy', Scheduled Tribe community. The Zonal Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry, as directed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and had submitted his enquiry report to the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi, vide his letter, dated 7.8.1993. In spite of the several recommendations made in favour of the petitioner, by the various authorities, the 6th respondent had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 24.1.2009, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated, as he had failed to produce the community certificate showing that he belongs to `Konda Reddy community. While so, the third respondent, vide proceedings, dated 21.5.2009, had rejected the claim made by the petitioner. While so, the third respondent, vide proceedings, dated 21.5.2009, had rejected the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order, before the second respondent, vide letter, dated 15.6.2009. After several rounds of litigations and in spite of the petitioner producing a certificate issued in favour of one of his relatives, namely, C.Ramalingam, and the statement showing his relationship with the said person, the third respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner stating that he does not belong to `Konda Reddy' community, a Scheduled Tribe community. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 had submitted that sufficient reasons have been given by the third respondent for the rejection of the request of the petitioner, for the issuance of a community certificate stating that he belongs to `Konda Reddy', a Schedule Tribe community. It is for the petitioner to prove with sufficient evidence that he belongs to `Konda Reddy' community. As he has failed to do so, the third respondent had passed the impugned order rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the third respondent may be set aside and the matter may be directed to be placed before the seventh respondent, for passing appropriate orders. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that, in the given facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the third respondent, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Further, we find it appropriate to direct the third respondent herein to place the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which has been impleaded as the seventh respondent in the present writ petition, by an order, passed on 8.10.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for considering the claims made by the petitioner, afresh, by causing an enquiry. On receipt of the application and the relevant records relating to the issuance of the community certificate, the seventh respondent, namely, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, shall cause an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon, without being influenced by the observations made by the third respondent, in his impugned order, dated 24.9.2014, by following the procedures established by law and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.