ORDER : M.VENUGOPAL, J. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. According to the Petitioner, she belongs to 'Konda Reddy Community', which is classified as 'Scheduled Tribe Community'. She obtained a Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur on 27.10.1988 to the effect that she belongs to Kondareddy Community. She appeared for Group-IV (1993-1994) Selection Examination conducted by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and was selected and appointed as 'Typist' under Scheduled Tribe Category in the office of the Joint Director, Agricultural Department, Villupuram on 19.10.1994. 3. The Petitioner's employer referred her case to the Secretary, Tamilnadu, Public Service Commission, Chennai to verify her Community Certificate. In turn, the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and obtained an opinion that her certificate is not genuine and based on such report, the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission issued a Show Cause Notice to her on 04.03.1996. 4. The Petitioner filed O.A.No.1674 of 1996 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, being aggrieved against the Show Cause Notice issued to her. An order of Interim Status Quo was granted by the Tribunal on 26.03.1996. Later, the case was transferred to this Court from the Tribunal [Since the Tribunal was abolished] and the case was renumbered as W.P.No.29551 of 2006. 5. This Court in W.P.No.29551 of 2006 on 16.02.2007 while setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 04.03.1996 gave liberty to the employer to refer the matter to the District Level Vigilance Committee. Based on the Government Order in G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 12.09.2007, the matter was referred to the 1st Respondent / State Level Scrutiny Committee. The 3rd Respondent / the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem issued a notice dated 17.08.2017 for an enquiry to be held on 14.10.2017. The Petitioner took part in the enquiry and produced as many as 131 documents in support of her claim. Further, she produced four witnesses for an enquiry. The 3rd Respondent examined eight witnesses behind the Petitioner's back without providing opportunity to cross-examine them. Also, the 3rd Respondent had obtained an opinion from the 4th Respondent / Anthropologist that the Petitioner does not belong to 'Konda Reddy Community'. 6. Further, she produced four witnesses for an enquiry. The 3rd Respondent examined eight witnesses behind the Petitioner's back without providing opportunity to cross-examine them. Also, the 3rd Respondent had obtained an opinion from the 4th Respondent / Anthropologist that the Petitioner does not belong to 'Konda Reddy Community'. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the 4th Respondent/Anthropologist had not followed procedure and the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 15.10.2012 and the guidelines issued in Kumari Maduri Patil's case reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 . The 3rd Respondent sent his report dated 28.02.2018 to the 2nd Respondent stating that the Petitioner does not belong to 'Konda Reddy Community.' 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the report of the 3rd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Division, District Police Office, Nethimedu, Salem is completely against provisions of Government Orders and the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Kumari Maduri Patil's Case reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and Anand Case reported in 2012 (1) SCC 113 . 8. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the documents furnished by the Petitioner were not at all taken into consideration. In fact, none of the 131 documents produced by the Petitioner was considered and appreciated by the Vigilance Cell. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1338 and in Anand V. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 had held that the documents filed by the applicant has to be considered by the Concerned Authorities. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the 1st Respondent issued a Letter of Instructions in Letter (Ms) No.60/CV1/2017 dated 06.10.2017 to all the Government Officers and the Paragraph No.2 of the said Circular reads as under: (2) In Anand Vs. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the 1st Respondent issued a Letter of Instructions in Letter (Ms) No.60/CV1/2017 dated 06.10.2017 to all the Government Officers and the Paragraph No.2 of the said Circular reads as under: (2) In Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others [ (2012) 1 SCC 113 ], the Supreme Court of India has inter-alia held that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant, who has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim, that the Caste Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and therefore, can only scrutinise the documents and material produced by the applicant and that in case the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to Paragraph No.10(iii) of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 15.10.2012, which reads as under: “(iii) on receipt of the reference from District Level Vigilance Committee/State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Inspector of the Vigilance Cell 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. The Vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian as the case may be. He also should 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 District Level Vigilance Committee /State Level Scrutiny Committee together with all particular's of as envisaged in the proforma, in particular 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 concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc., and contends that as per the said Government Order only the Vigilance Officer can conduct an enquiry in respect of Anthropological aspect. That apart, a professional Anthropologist have no role in conducting a preliminary enquiry. In this connection, the Learned Counsel adverts to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Kumari Maduri Patil's Case reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 wherein at Paragraph No.5 it is observed as follows: 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance 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. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should 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 concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc., 10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that the role of an 'Anthropologist' will come into play only when the report of the Vigilance Officer is against the claimant, the Anthropologist can conduct an enquiry. However, the report of the 3rd Respondent is contrary to the Government Order. Continuing further, it is the contention of the Petitioner that there is no such community called as 'Hindu Reddy' and that the 3rd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Division, District Police Office, Nethimedu, Salem 2 in his report had stated that the Petitioner belongs to 'Reddy Community', as such, report of the 3rd Respondent is liable to be quashed. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphatically projects an argument that if the Vigilance Cell Officer had provided liberty to the Petitioner to examine the witnesses, then, the Petitioner would have established her claim stating that she belongs to 'Konda Reddy Community'. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphatically projects an argument that if the Vigilance Cell Officer had provided liberty to the Petitioner to examine the witnesses, then, the Petitioner would have established her claim stating that she belongs to 'Konda Reddy Community'. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil case, the report should contain peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity ritual, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremony, mode of burial of dead bodies by the concerned tribal community. Also it is the stand of the Petitioner that the report of the 4th Respondent / Anthropologist is only a empty formality and it did not contain anything about, (i) Peculiar anthropological (ii) Ethnological traits (iii) Deity (iv) Rituals (v) Customs (vi) Mode of Marriage (vii) Death Ceremonies (viii) Method of burial of dead bodies etc., therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the 4th Respondent had not conducted any proper enquiry. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the Order dated 03.11.2011 between R.Nagarajan V. SLSC in W.P.No.16983 of 2011 wherein at Paragraph Nos.3 and 4, it is observed as under: “3. We have perused the impugned order as well as the counter affidavit. Even in the counter affidavit, the respondent has only stated that at the time of enquiry before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Anthropologist asked the Petitioner about the customary activities of Kurumans and on the basis of the answers given by petitioner, he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Kurumans Community. In our opinion, such a procedure adopted by the Anthropologist is not in conformity with the direction of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case, which has been followed by this Court in the above said Writ Petition. 4. For the aforesaid reason, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration and the Anthropologist is directed to conduct an inspection in the locality of the Petitioner and thereafter, place the report before the committee for consideration. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.” Since the Petitioner has no other alternative has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing the present Writ Petition. 13. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.” Since the Petitioner has no other alternative has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing the present Writ Petition. 13. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents that the Petitioner secured Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate in the name of 'Konda Reddy' on 27.10.1988 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Salem District and she was selected in the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) Group IV Exam (1993-1994) and joined as Typist in the office of Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Villupuram on 19.10.1994 under Scheduled Tribe Category. Apart from that, on the first day itself, the Employer referred the Petitioner's Community Certificate to the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission for verification and confirmation, who in turn referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and that the said officer had certified that the Petitioner's Community Certificate is not genuine. 14. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents contends that based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission issued Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner and the Petitioner filed O.A.No.1674 of 1996 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained an Order of Status Quo on 26.03.1996. After the abolition of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, the O.A.No.1674 of 1996 was transferred to this Court and renumbered W.P.No.29551 of 2006 and this Court had set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 04.03.1996 issued by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and the matter was referred to the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) as per G.O.(2D) No.108 dated 12.09.2007. 15. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents submits that based on the employers' request, the 1st Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee had directed the 3rd Respondent to conduct the enquiry about the Petitioner's Community status and to submit a report to the 2nd Respondent/the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. Hence the 3rd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice & Human Rights Division, Salem 2 issued a notice to the Petitioner requiring him to appear for an enquiry and a sufficient opportunity was provided to him. In fact, the Petitioner gave 131 documents to support her claim. 16. Hence the 3rd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice & Human Rights Division, Salem 2 issued a notice to the Petitioner requiring him to appear for an enquiry and a sufficient opportunity was provided to him. In fact, the Petitioner gave 131 documents to support her claim. 16. Also that, the Petitioner in her Writ Affidavit at Paragraph No.6 had averred that the 3rd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem 2 had examined 8 witnesses behind her back for providing an opportunity to cross examine them and this aspect is denied on behalf of the Respondents. 17. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents forcefully projects an argument that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court Guidelines, the Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status of claimant or parents, guardian, as the case may be and further, he should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. Further, he should examine the parents, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc., or such other individuals, who possess knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit report to the Directorate. Moreover, the 3rd Respondent had conducted the enquiry with various persons in relation to the Petitioner's Community status and collected the documents relating to her Community status and on obtaining the opinion of the Anthropologist, the report was submitted to the 2nd Respondent/Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai and this procedure followed for the verification of the Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate, as per the Government Order and Hon'ble Supreme Court Guidelines. 18. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents comes out with a stand that the 3rd Respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Division, Salem filed a detailed report about the Petitioner's community status before the 2nd Respondent / the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai on 28.02.2018 stating that the Petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy and therefore, the 2nd Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2018 and gave a reminder on 14.05.2018, 12.06.2018 asking for explanation, but the Petitioner, had not furnished any explanation. To evade the explanation, the Petitioner without clean hands has approached this Court by filing present Writ Petition. 19. To evade the explanation, the Petitioner without clean hands has approached this Court by filing present Writ Petition. 19. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents that for the First Show Cause Notice issued by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, the Petitioner had not furnished any reply and when the Second Show Cause Notice was issued to Petitioner without offering her explanation, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition and from the year 1996 to till this date, viz., 2018, she had not co-operated with the authorities, as per guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Government Order. 20. By way of reply, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that by means of the State Government's Letter in Ms.No.60/CV1/2017 dated 06.10.2017, the 3rd Respondent / the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice & Human Rights Division, Salem 2 cannot collect any document to disprove the Petitioner's claim and if any document came to light during the 3rd Respondent's enquiry, it should not be relied upon so as to reject the claim of the Petitioner. 21. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 3rd Respondent / the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Division, Salem 2 had not collected any particulars in the performa, as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Orders of the Government. 22. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the RTI Application of the Petitioner dated 25.01.2018 and a reply of the Public Information Officer, Tribal Research Centre, M.Palada, Udhagamandalam, dated 27.02.2018 and submits that the Public Information Officer of the Tribal Research Centre, Udhagamandalam had clearly mentioned that no training was given to the Vigilance Officers [Social Justice and Human Rights Division] and therefore, put forth a plea that the 3rd Respondent / Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem is not qualified to conduct any Vigilance Cell Enquriy. 23. 23. In the present case, it is to be borne in mind that only based on the employers' request, the 1st Respondent/Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, Secretariat, Chennai had directed the 3rd Respondent / the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem to conduct enquiry in regard to the Petitioner's Community status and to furnish a report to the 2nd Respondent, therefore, the 3rd Respondent had issued a notice to the Petitioner requiring him to appear for an enquiry. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner furnished documents nearly eight witnesses were examined. In reality, the 3rd Respondent / the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem collected necessary documents pertaining to Petitioner's Community status and after obtaining an opinion of the Anthropologist, submitted a report to the 2nd Respondent / the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai 600 005. The 3rd Respondent in his report dated 28.02.2018 submitted to the 2nd Respondent had stated that the Petitioner does not belong to 'Kondareddy'. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent / the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner on 26.04.2018 and further, reminded him on 14.05.2018, 12.06.2018 seeking explanation. Without tendering his explanation, the Petitioner has approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition, which in the earnest opinion of this Court is a premature and futile one. 24. In the result, this Court to prevent an aberration of justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and also not delving deep into the subject matter in issue, at this juncture, directs the Petitioner to take part in the enquiry proceedings before the 2nd Respondent / the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai and to submit her explanation in writing in regard to the Vigilance Cell report. The 2nd Respondent is directed to specify a fresh date and time for enquiry by addressing a communication to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall appear before the 2nd Respondent on the specified date and time without offering any excuses. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to project all factual and legal pleas (including the aspect of seeking permission to cross examine the relevant witnesses) before the 2nd Respondent coupled with a production of documents at her command. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to project all factual and legal pleas (including the aspect of seeking permission to cross examine the relevant witnesses) before the 2nd Respondent coupled with a production of documents at her command. Moreover, the materials furnished by the Petitioner are required to be taken into consideration by the 2nd Respondent and if the 2nd Respondent / the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai comes to the conclusion that the Petitioner's claim in respect of her Social status is a doubtful or not a genuine one, then, an explanation is required to be called for from the Petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of communication by her. After obtaining the reply of the Petitioner, then, she shall be directed to appear for an enquiry before the 1st Respondent / Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, Chennai along with supporting reliable documents to establish her claim of community status. The 1st Respondent / Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee after providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner by following 'Principles of Natural Justice' and by taking into consideration of the relevant documents and available records and also considering the opinion / view of Anthropologist is directed by this Court to pass final orders in the subject matter in issue in a free, just, fair, and in a dispassionate manner, in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, of course, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another V. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94. The Petitioner is directed to afford her assistance and unstinted co-operation in bringing an end to the completion of enquiry in a comprehensive manner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.