Judgment S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. The petitioner has sought an order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Proc.No.14537/CV-II/2008-12, dated 09.07.2014 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to confirm the community certificate of the petitioner as 'Hindu Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe, as issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, dated 05.08.1977 and the Tahsildar, Tiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District, dated 05.06.1981. 2. The impugned order, dated 09.07.2014, has been passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee of Adi-Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Department, Chennai-9, in proceedings No. 14537/CV-II/2008-12. The said State Level Scrutiny Committee, after enquiry and considering the evidence on record, has concluded that the petitioner does not belong to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order passed by the first respondent reads that after careful examination, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has uniformly come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe and accordingly, the State Level Scrutiny committee rejected the claim of the petitioner and also directed the concerned District Collector, to cancel the community certificate issued for the petitioner stating her as ''Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe, by certificate, dated 05.08.1977 issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District and the Caste Certificate issued in the format by the Tahsildar, Tiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District, dated 05.06.1981 and initiate criminal action against the petitioner. 3. The two main grounds raised by the petitioner are : (1) there was no reasonable opportunity given to the petitioner, that was violation of principles of natural justice; (2) that the first respondent, State Level Scrutiny Committee for Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is not the competent authority to decide the the genuineness of the community certificate, issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District and the Tahsildar, Tiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District. The writ petitioner has stated further in the petition that her employer, the second respondent herein sought a certificate regarding the genuineness of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, for getting her job. Subsequently, the petitioner was called upon for an enquiry to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Kumbakonam. As the original community certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District, stating her as Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, the petitioner was called upon for an enquiry to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Kumbakonam. As the original community certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District, stating her as Scheduled Tribe. To verify the genuineness, she was called upon by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Musiri, Trichy District to appear before him on 22.10.1990, however, the petitioner did not appear before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. Again the petitioner was directed to appear, even according to her for enquiry, by another letter, dated 03.04.1991, before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, again the petitioner did not appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, though he was a superior officer to the Tahsildar, who had issued community certificate in favour of the petitioner stating her as Hindu-Konda Reddis of Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, her employer, the second respondent issued a letter to the petitioner, stating that the community certificate produced by her was cancelled by the District Collector on 03.05.1995 and therefore, the petitioner was liable to be proceeded departmentally for having produced bogus community certificate, stating her as 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe for getting her job. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District, had originally issued the community certificate in favour of the petitioner, stating that she belongs to Hindu-Konda Reddis community of Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, she obtained community certificate in the format from the Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District, since she shifted her residence to Sooriyanar Kovil village, Tiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District. Therefore, it is clear that the Tahsildar, Tiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District, issued the community certificate, only based on the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. However, when enquiry was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, who is a superior officer to the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, the petitioner did not appear continuously, for the reasons best known to her, based on the enquiry and the decision taken thereon, the District Collector, Thanjavur, cancelled the community certificate obtained by the petitioner herein from the Tahsildar, Tiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District. 5. After the cancellation of the community certificate, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2351 of 1996 and obtained interim stay of all further proceeding, pursuant to the cancellation of the community certificate. 5. After the cancellation of the community certificate, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2351 of 1996 and obtained interim stay of all further proceeding, pursuant to the cancellation of the community certificate. The petitioner has further admitted that the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 29.11.2001, directing the District Level Vigilance Committee, to dispose the matter. Accordingly, the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Thanjavur, issued a letter, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the District Level Vigilance Committee, Thanjavur for the verification of the genuineness of the community certificate on 25.04.2008. However, the petitioner raised a plea that as per G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 12.09.2007, the District Level Vigilance Committee is not the competent authority to enquire about the genuineness of the community certificate issued as Scheduled Tribe, but only the State Level scrutiny committee consisting of Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department as Chairman, Director and Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and as Member Secretary is the competent authority to consider and pass appropriate orders regarding the genuineness of the community certificate issued stating her as Hindu-Konda Reddis of Scheduled Tribe. 6. It has been admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition that notice was issued on her by the District Vigilance Committee, Thanjavur. However, the petitioner approached the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.3892 of 2008 and sought an order to quash the proceedings, on the ground that the District Level Committee is not the competent authority to decide the genuineness of the community certificate, but only the State Level Scrutiny Committee, has to decide the same. This Court, by order, dated 28.04.2008 in W.P.(MD).No.30693 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 was pleased to quash the order and directed the State to refer the petitioner's case to the State Level scrutiny committee, as per G.O (2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 12.09.2007. Hence, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the matter was referred to the State level scrutiny committee, the first respondent herein. The aforesaid factum has been admitted by the petitioner in here writ petition. 7. Hence, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the matter was referred to the State level scrutiny committee, the first respondent herein. The aforesaid factum has been admitted by the petitioner in here writ petition. 7. As per the averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the Chairman of State Level committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9, issued a notice to the petitioner by letter No.14537/CV2/2008/5, dated 09.08.2011, directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 19.07.2011, whereby the petitioner was also directed to produce all the documents in support of her claim that she belongs to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of the Scheduled Tribe. According to her, the said notice was issued on the petitioner, only on 19.08.2012 and she could not appear for the enquiry, but her husband appeared and got an adjournment. Then the petitioner was issued with another notice on 30.12.2011 to appear for the enquiry before the State level Committee, however, the petitioner has stated that due to her ill health, she could not appear and then the matter was adjourned to another date. Then the petitioner was issued with another notice on 12.05.2014, asking her to submit written reply for the enquiry report, dated 20.05.1996, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam. 8. As per the impugned order, dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Tamil Nadu State level scrutiny committee for Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, it has been found that the petitioner Tmt.R.Thenmozhi, D/o. Thiru.K.Ramasamy, native of Nettavelampatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy does not belong to the 'Hindu Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe. The State Level scrutiny committee has arrived at a conclusion that the community certificate obtained by the petitioner, stating her as 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe is not genuine one, as per the enquiry conducted by the State level scrutiny committee, in view of the Government Orders issued in G.O.(Ms).No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 15.10.2012 read with Government Letter No. 18922/CV-1/2012-1, dated 11.12.2012. The petitioner did not appeared before the enquiry committee or the District Collector and even before the State level scrutiny committee. The petitioner did not appeared before the enquiry committee or the District Collector and even before the State level scrutiny committee. After receiving the notice to appear before the committee, she did not appear but only sent her husband along with certain copies of documents, which are self-serving in nature and other documents are against her claim. Based on the evidence, the State Level scrutiny committee held that the petitioner does not belongs to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' of Scheduled Tribe. 9. The two documents produced on behalf of the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 9 of the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee are (1) Community Certificate, dated 05.08.1997 issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District and (2) Copy of the Caste Certificate issued in the format by the Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District on 05.06.1981. It is the case of the first respondent that the aforesaid certificates are not genuine and she does not belong to 'Hindu Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe, however, she had obtained the first community certificate, dated 05.08.1977 from the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District, fraudulently, based on which she obtained certificate in the proper format from the Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District, stating that she had shifted her residence to Sooriyanar Koil, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District. Both the certificates were cancelled by the District Collector, after proper enquiry and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right stating her as 'Hindu-Konda Reddis community of Scheduled Tribe, based on the said certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District, dated 05.08.1977 and the Tahsiladar, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District, dated 05.06.1981. 10. The third document is the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner belongs to Reddy community and not Hindu-Konda Reddis Community of Scheduled Tribe. In her SSLC Book at the appropriate column, stating whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Most Backward Class or converted to Christianity from Scheduled Caste, it is stated as "No", which is not in dispute. Therefore, it is crystal clear, that as per the SSLC certificate of the petitioner and the declaration of her father made thereon, she does not belong to 'Hindu Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe, but only a Reddy community candidate. Her SSLC Book shows that she is not even a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Most Backward Class or converted to Christianity from Scheduled Caste. Her SSLC Book shows that she is not even a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Most Backward Class or converted to Christianity from Scheduled Caste. Similarly, the other document produced by her as Document No.vii, a copy of the Partition deed relating to her father Ramasamy and her uncle, it is stated that the father of the petitioner is only "Ramasamy Reddiar". It is not in dispute that Reddiar community is a different community, which is not 'Hindu Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's own document would show that she does not belong to Hindu Konda Reddis community of Scheduled Tribe. The other three documents, (iv) Genealogy details of the individual prepared by herself is only a self-serving document, which has no evidenciary value. The document (v) relates to some other person of the village of Puliansolaikkombal, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District and the petitioner cannot simply state that it relates to her grand father. Strangely, the said document shows that the community mentioned therein is only Boja Reddi @ Muttu Reddi and not as 'Hindu Konda Reddis' of Scheduled Tribe. 11. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner's grand father was residing in Namakkal Taluk, Salem District. Similarly, she produced a copy of the document relating to the year 1902 of one Mookareddy @ Ramasamy Reddy, stating that the person is the great grand father of the petitioner, which cannot be accepted as a valid document to prove the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, as the same stands in the name of a third party. Hence, the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, by the impugned order has rightly rejected the claim based on the self-serving genealogy details and the copies of the documents relating to some other persons and the reliable documents such as SSLC book of the petitioner, copy of the partition deed relating to her father, produced by the petitioner, would show that the petitioner does not belong to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the community certificate of her father or mother to show that she belongs to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe for the reasons best known to her. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the community certificate of her father or mother to show that she belongs to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe for the reasons best known to her. In fact, her SSLC Book and the copy of the partition deed, relating to the year 1954 of her father and uncle would show that she belongs to 'Reddiar community', which is admittedly not a caste comes under the category of Scheduled Tribe. Having failed to appear before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, in spite of several notice and after the notice sent by the State level scrutiny committee, it is not open to the petitioner to raise a plea that there was no reasonable opportunity given to the petitioner to raise her defence. The impugned order and the admission made by the petitioner herein in her writ petition would show that proper and reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner, however, she failed to appear before the authorities. After the notice issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein, the petitioner produced documents through her husband, the said factum has been admitted by the petitioner herein in the writ petition and therefore, the plea of the petitioner that reasonable opportunity was not given to her is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it has to be held that there is no violation of principles of natural justice by the respondents. 13. Even during the course of arguments, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel submitted that he stick on with the ground that the first respondent, State Level Scrutiny Committee, has no authority to pass the order and the power is vested only with the District Level Committee. Such a defence would not be available to the petitioner, since the petitioner had filed earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.3892 of 2008, stating that the District Level Committee would not be the competent authority to decide the genuineness of the community certificate and as per G.O.(2D) No.108, dated 12.09.2007, only the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein is empowered to conduct the enquiry. Having stated so, it is not open to the petitioner and raise an inconsistent and self-contradictory plea that the State Level Scrutiny Committee of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, after participating the enquiry and producing documents through her husband. 14. Having stated so, it is not open to the petitioner and raise an inconsistent and self-contradictory plea that the State Level Scrutiny Committee of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, after participating the enquiry and producing documents through her husband. 14. It is seen that a responsible Senior IAS Officer, Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is the Chairman of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and an IFS Officer, Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and an Anthropologist, Head of the Department of Anthropology, University of Madras, Chennai, have been the Members in the said Committee. After the enquiry, considering the documents and the evidence adduced, they have unanimously held that the petitioner does not belong to 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe and the certificate obtained by the petitioner, for the purpose of getting job under the second respondent is not genuine document. The findings of the Scrutiny Committee is that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the benefit reaches the real SC and ST and spurious and ineligible persons are not entitled to any get false community certificate. 15. In V.V.Kalaivanan v. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, reported in 2010 (3) CTC 673 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the petitioner therein was entitled to Community certificate as he belonging to Konda Reddy, on the basis of the Community certificates issued in favour of his parents and his brother, which were not challenged. As there is no dispute with regard to the Community certificate issued stating that the parents and brother of the petitioner therein as Scheduled Tribe, the authority cannot dispute the community of the petitioner therein alone. However, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner has not produced any certificate to show that her parents, brother or sister belongs to 'Hindu- Konda Reddis' community. Per contra, the evidence produced by the petitioner would show that she belongs to a different community, 'Reddy' and not a 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe. 16. In T.R.Vijayanandan v. The Dist. Collector, Madurai District, reported in 2009 (1) CTC 385 , a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : "14. Per contra, the evidence produced by the petitioner would show that she belongs to a different community, 'Reddy' and not a 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe. 16. In T.R.Vijayanandan v. The Dist. Collector, Madurai District, reported in 2009 (1) CTC 385 , a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : "14. The Constitution of India has guaranteed equal rights and afforded reservations for the communities, which are oppressed for generations together and the persons like the petitioner, who belong to an upper class community, are falsely claiming the benefits extended to oppressed communities, wrongly claiming as if they belong to an underprivileged community, sole with a view to reap the benefits extended to such underprivileged community people, at the cost of the welfare of such people. The considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class. In the case on hand, the irresistible evidence available on record would show that the cultural characteristics of the petitioner's family are having similarities only with the Reddiar community and not with the community characteristics of Kondareddi tribal community. Further, the material available on record would clearly show that the petitioner and his deceased father have attempted to play fraud on the Constitution, taking advantage of the fact of similarity between the words 'Reddy' and 'Konda Reddy' and if people of this type are let out freely without being prosecuting and punishing, it, in our considered view, would amount to raping the Constitution, further shaking the confidence of the people." 17. It is the clear finding of the State Level Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has obtained the certificate, by cheating the Constitutional mandate, to defeat the noble aim of the Constitution in providing certain concessions to the Scheduled Tribe community people, to uplift them in the society. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has also directed the District Collector, Thanjavur to ensure that criminal case is booked against the individual for having furnished false information and obtained Scheduled Tribe community certificate from the Revenue Authorities and joined in the service under the second respondent. 18. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has also directed the District Collector, Thanjavur to ensure that criminal case is booked against the individual for having furnished false information and obtained Scheduled Tribe community certificate from the Revenue Authorities and joined in the service under the second respondent. 18. It is seen that the Senior IAS Officer, Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, as Chairman, the IFS Officer as Director of Tribal Welfare, and the Anthropologist, Head of the Department of Anthropology, University of Madras, Chennai, as State Level Scrutiny Committee, conducted enquiry, after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, they unanimously held that the petitioner does not belong to the 'Hindu-Konda Reddis' Community of Scheduled Tribe and the Committee has also directed the District Collector, Thanjavur to book criminal case against the petitioner herein, for fraudulently getting community certificate for the purpose of obtaining job in Indian Bank. 19. On the aforesaid circumstances, having filed the writ petition stating that the District Level Scrutiny Committee is not the competent authority and only the State Level Scrutiny Committee has the power and competency to decide the issue, it is not open to the petitioner to raise a contradictory plea that the State Level Scrutiny Committee is not empowered to decide the issue relating to the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner herein and that too after having participated in the enquiry conducted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 20. The petitioner has been given adequate and reasonable opportunity by the Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, District Level Committee and finally, the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare. Having participated in the enquiry, conducted by the first respondent through her husband, it is not open to the petitioner to state that the first respondent has no authority to enquire the matter, such a defence would show that the petitioner, having obtained spurious and fraudulent certificate, stating the petitioner as 'Hindu- Konda Reddis' community of Scheduled Tribe and got appointment under the second respondent is protracting the matter continuously for more than two decades. The entries made in the SSLC Book of the petitioner and the copy of the partition deed relating to petitioner's father produced by her would clearly establish that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Konda Reddis community of Scheduled Tribe, but only a different community. 21. The entries made in the SSLC Book of the petitioner and the copy of the partition deed relating to petitioner's father produced by her would clearly establish that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Konda Reddis community of Scheduled Tribe, but only a different community. 21. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view to confirm the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 09.07.2014 and dismiss the writ petition with cost. As directed by the Committee, the District Collector, Thanjavur, shall take appropriate action against the petitioner, as per procedure known to law. 22. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the Director, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and the same shall be spent for the welfare of the Tribal students studying in the State.