JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren J., 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that she belongs to Hindu Archakarai Vellala Community, which is recognised as a backward community, as per the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year, 1985. The said community has also been classified under the category of other Backward Class Community, as per the orders of the Government of India. The Thasildar, Tirunelveli Taluk, had issued a community certificate, dated 6.10.1997, stating that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Archakarai Vellala Community. The said certificate had been issued after proper local enquiry, by the said Thasildar, and on proper verification of the relevant records. 3. The petitioner has further stated that she has been appointed as a Postal Assistant, during the year, 1998, under the first respondent Department. The petitioner had completed nearly 15 years of service. While so, during the month of March, 2002, a discreet enquiry is said to have been made, by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tirunelveli, and certain materials had been collected by the said Committee. Thereafter, on 2.10.2002, an order had been passed cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner’s claim is that the said order had been passed by the second respondent without considering any of the documentary evidence available on record and the statement of the villagers residing in the locality concerned and the other persons, who would have given the necessary information regarding the community of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.39840 of 2002. This Court had passed an order, dated 30.6.2010, setting aside the order passed by the second respondent on the ground that the committee had not been validly constituted. Therefore, the matter had been remanded for fresh consideration by a competent committee consisting of three members. 4. It had been further stated that the petitioner had been called to appear for an enquiry before the second respondent committee, during the month of April, 2013. Therefore, the matter had been remanded for fresh consideration by a competent committee consisting of three members. 4. It had been further stated that the petitioner had been called to appear for an enquiry before the second respondent committee, during the month of April, 2013. Even though a detailed statement had been submitted before the committee, by the petitioner, enclosing the copies of the community certificate of the petitioner, entries in the school register, the community certificates issued to the petitioner’s brothers and her husband, who is her first cousin, and the statements from the villagers living in the locality concerned, to show that the members of the family of the petitioner had been traditionally engaged in performing the poojas in the temple, the second respondent committee had rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. It had also been stated that the statements of the Village Administrative Officer concerned, the Thalaiyari and the other functionaries of the village had also been submitted to the second respondent committee. However, the second respondent committee had rejected the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Hindu Archakarai Vellala Community. Based on the order of the second respondent committee cancelling the community certificate, dated 6.10.1997, which had been issued in favour of the petitioner, the first respondent is likely to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 13.9.2013, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The main contention of Mr.V.Vijayshankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a member of a second respondent committee, who is an Anthropologist and who has the specialized knowledge in identifying communities of persons, based on their customs and usages, peculiar characteristics, mannerisms and other relevant information, had not filed a report before the second respondent committee. There is no reference to the report of the Anthropologist in the impugned order of the second respondent committee. Sufficient opportunity had not been given to the petitioner to substantiate her claims. 7. The learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.7.2010, in W.P.No.2706 of 2006 (N.GOVINDASAMY Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADIDRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI) and T.KANNAMMAL Vs. Sufficient opportunity had not been given to the petitioner to substantiate her claims. 7. The learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.7.2010, in W.P.No.2706 of 2006 (N.GOVINDASAMY Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADIDRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI) and T.KANNAMMAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, (2013) 2 MLJ 708 ), to show that the report of the Anthropologist is an important source of information for the committee to arrive at a conclusive decision, with regard to the community of the claimant. However, it is noted that in the present case, the report of the Anthropologist was not available for the second respondent committee to pass an order cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents had not disputed the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent committee had passed the impugned order, cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, without having the necessary information relating to the community of the petitioner, based on the report of the Anthropologist. 9. Even though certain other materials were available, based on which the second respondent committee had passed the impugned order, dated 13.9.2013, we are of the considered view that the second respondent committee ought to have taken into account the report of the Anthropologist before passing the impugned order. As the report of the Anthropologist was not available, the second respondent committee has passed the impugned order, based on the materials available on record. 10. In view of the decisions cited supra, we find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent committee, dated 13.9.2013, and to remit the matter back to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, afresh, after the report of the Anthropologist is submitted before the second respondent and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with regard to the said report. The second respondent committee shall consider the evidence available before it, both oral as well as the documentary, relating to the claim of the petitioner, and it shall pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.