Judgment : M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order, in Proceedings No.11043/CV-II/2012-7, dated 03.01.2014, issued by the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee, in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and also cancelling the Hindu 'Sholaga' Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate No.528/74, dated 26.07.1974, issued by the Tahsildar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 2. Although the Petitioner, in the Writ Petition, has raised numerous grounds in regard to the rejection of his claim and also cancelling his Hindu 'Sholaga' Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate dated 26.07.1974 issued by the Tahsildar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a prime submission that the impugned order, dated 03.01.2014, of the 1st Respondent is liable to be quashed, on the simple ground of bias and prejudice, inasmuch as the 3rd Member of the State Level Scrutiny Committee viz., Dr.S.Sumathi was also a Member of the District Vigilance Committee and further, on the basis of her opinion, the impugned order came to be passed. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the 3rd Member of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee/ Anthropologist took part in the District Vigilance Committee and later, also in the State Level Scrutiny Committee and in W.P.No.19656 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner therein (viz., S.Saraswathy), the Division Bench of this Court, on 04.08.2010, quashed the Proceedings No. 21425/CV-II/2008, dated 08.09.2009, on the file of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and that the said order squarely applies to the facts of the present case on hand. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that as per G.O.(Ms.) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV I) Department, dated 15.10.2012, the Government of Tamil Nadu has constituted Vigilance Cells at regional level to verify the community status of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and to submit its report to the competent committee and in the present case on hand, the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee ought to have called for a Report from the properly constituted Vigilance Cell and thereafter should have proceeded to determine the subject matter in issue. However, such a report from the Vigilance Cell was not obtained by the 1st Respondent/Committee and in this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the Division Bench order of this Court, dated 27.11.2012, in W.P.No.27752 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, in paragraph No.7, it is, inter alia, held as follows: “7. Apart from that, it may be seen that under G.O.(Ms.) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV 1) Department, dated 15.10.2012, the Government has constituted vigilance cell and modified the functions of the Committees ordered in G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 12.09.2007 to verify the certificate issued to a person. In the context of the Government Order thus passed, before taking final decision on the claim of the Petitioner, the State Level Committee shall have the benefit of report from the State Level Vigilance Committee too. Wherever any such report is given, the same shall be furnished to the Petitioner in compliance of principle natural justice and follow the procedure as laid down in the Government Order and pass orders accordingly.” 5. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent/Scrutiny Committee is not based on bias and prejudice and in fact, the Petitioner attended the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee enquiry twice on 13.11.2013 and 26.12.2013 and on both occasions, Dr.S.Sumathi acted as a Member/Anthropologist and the Petitioner had not objected to the enquiries made by the said Anthropologist and added further, no objection was raised by him, in his reply, to the show cause notice served upon him on 19.11.2013, [which was well before the final enquiry which was conducted on 26.12.2013] and as such, the contra pleas taken on behalf of the Petitioner are devoid of merits. 6. 6. Advancing her arguments, the Learned Government Advocate for the 1st Respondent strenuously contends that the Government has issued an amendment to the G.O.(Ms) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV I) Department, dated 15.10.2012, in its letter No.18922/CV-1/2012, dated 11.12.2012, whereby and whereunder, it is ordered as follows: “On receipt of the application from the employer / recruiting agency for verification of the genuineness of the Community Certificate of the individual, the District Level Vigilance Committee/ State Level Scrutiny Committee shall call the individual for enquiry along with the original documents to substantiate his claim as required by the committee for passing necessary orders. In case of doubtful cases, the committee shall refer the cases to the respective Vigilance Cell, for verification of the community status of the individual.” and in the instant case on hand, the Reports of the Revenue Authorities, views of Anthropologist, documentary evidences adduced by the parties are supportive to the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee in arriving at a decision that the Petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe “Sholaga” Community and as such, the 1st Respondent/Committee decided that the case of the Petitioner need not be referred to the Vigilance Cell for further action. 7. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate for the 1st Respondent and noticed their contentions. 8. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the 3rd Member of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee viz., Dr.S.Sumathi, Anthropologist was also one of the Members in the District Vigilance committee, the 1st Respondent/ Committee came to the conclusion that the Petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe “Sholaga” Community. As such, we are of the considered view that she should not have participated in the proceedings as Member/Anthropologist at the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee once again, inasmuch as the Petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of fair and unbiased hearing at the time of disposal of the proceedings pending before the 1st Respondent/Scrutiny Committee, however, that had not happened in the case of 1st the Petitioner and the participation of the said Dr.S.Sumathi, Member/ Anthropologist in the Respondent/Committee at the time of passing the impugned order had resulted in bias and prejudice caused to the Petitioner. Accordingly, on this simple ground alone, we are left with no other option, but to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent/Scrutiny Committee, dated 03.01.2014 and sets aside the same, in the interest of Justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The order of the 1st Respondent/Committee, dated 03.01.2014, is hereby set aside by this Court, for the reasons assigned in this Writ Petition. The entire subject matter is remitted back to the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration and the Committee is directed to consider and pass final orders in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Before passing fresh final orders in the matter in issue, it is open to the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee to obtain the Report from the State Level Vigilance Committee and the 1st Respondent/Committee is directed to furnish a copy of the State Level Vigilance Committee Report to the Petitioner, by adhering to the principles of Natural Justice and also scrupulously following the tenor and spirit of G.O.(Ms) No.106, dated 15.10.2012 (if situation so warrants). It is made clear by this Court that the 3rd Member viz., Dr.S.Sumathi, Anthropologist shall not be one of the members of the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and in her place, some other Anthropologist shall be included. The 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee is to pass necessary final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order [of course, after providing adequate opportunities to all parties concerned]. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.