JUDGMENT U Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks for a mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.140, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.12.2007 issued by the 1st respondent confirming the proceedings in Roc.NoC3/1972/2002 dated 31.10.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent finding that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate No.4340/77 dated 22.10.1977 by fraudulent means and misrepresenting the facts to the officers concerned, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the aforesaid G.O. and the proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and pass such other orders as deemed fit. 2. The petitioner's case is thus: a) In the year 1977, the petitioner applied to the then Tahsildar, Puttur Taluk, Chittoor District to issue caste certificate. In the application, she mentioned her caste as 'Achary', but she did not mention her caste as 'Kammara' or her social status as 'ST'. The Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry and basing on the report of the Revenue Inspector, issued caste certificate No.4370/77 dated 22.10.1977 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Achary (Kammara) caste and the said caste is recognised as 'Scheduled Tribe' under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes list modification order, 1956. b) The petitioner's fore-fathers resided in Visakhapatnam and they migrated to Chittoor District about 70 years back i.e., before her birth and settled down in Nagari Village, Chittor District. In Rayalaseema region, the Kammara caste male persons suffix their names with Achary and they are called as Acharies. In the school records of the petitioner including in the transfer certificate issued by the S.G.N.zilla Parishad High School, Nagari, Chittoor District, wherein the petitioner studied 10th class, her caste is mentioned as 'Achary'. c) In the year 1991, the petitioner applied to the Telecom Department (now renamed as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)) for appointment to the post of Telecom Assistant. The petitioner specifically mentioned her caste as 'Achary' (Kammara) in the application and enclosed her transfer certificate issued by the school authority in which her caste is mentioned as 'Achary'. She was selected and appointed as Telecom Assistant on 20.06.1981 basing on her brilliant academic career. She was not informed by the Department at any point of time whether she was selected under General category or ST category to the said post. Though the petitioner put up more than 27 years of service in BSNL, yet to her knowledge, she has never availed any service benefits under ST category till date. She was not informed by the Department at any point of time whether she was selected under General category or ST category to the said post. Though the petitioner put up more than 27 years of service in BSNL, yet to her knowledge, she has never availed any service benefits under ST category till date. d) While so, on a representation said to have been submitted by the Federation of All India SC/ST Telecom Employees, Tirupati branch, in the year 2002 requesting the 3rd respondent to investigate into the caste of the petitioner and to take necessary action, the 3rd respondent appears to have referred the matter to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent appears to have requested the R.D.O., Chittoor, to submit a report and the R.D.O., Chittoor appears to have submitted a report to the 2nd respondent falsely stating as if the petitioner obtained Kammara (ST) caste certificate No.4340/77 dated 22.10.1977 by fraudulent means. Then, the 2nd respondent has referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) and the matter was inquired into. The DLSC held that since the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate that she belonged to ST category and therefore, she was not ST Kammara but she belonged to Kammara and that the petitioner obtained Kammara (ST) caste certificate by fraudulent means and misrepresenting the facts to the officers concerned and hence, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner as 'Kammara' (ST) is liable to be cancelled. The said finding of the DLSC is factually incorrect. The 2nd respondent has mechanically accepted the recommendations of the DLSC and issued orders vide proceedings in Roc.No.C3/1972/2002 dated 31.10.2004 cancelling the caste certificate dated 22.10.1977. e) Prior to the advent of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1977, there was no procedure or rules for disclosing the social status in the application submitted for issuance of caste certificate by the applicants to the competent authority. They used to submit applications on a plain paper disclosing only the caste, basing on which, the competent authority after necessary enquiry report from the concerned Revenue Inspector and after satisfying with the report, used to issue caste certificates mentioning that the applicant belongs to a particular caste which is recognised with a particular social status i.e., SC/ST/BC. They used to submit applications on a plain paper disclosing only the caste, basing on which, the competent authority after necessary enquiry report from the concerned Revenue Inspector and after satisfying with the report, used to issue caste certificates mentioning that the applicant belongs to a particular caste which is recognised with a particular social status i.e., SC/ST/BC. In view of the said practice in vogue, the observation of the DLSC that the petitioner obtained Kammara (ST) caste certificate by fraudulent means by misrepresenting the facts to the officers concerned, is far from truth. f) The 3rd respondent on the instruction of 2nd respondent contemplated to cancel the petitioner's appointment, even before a Gazette notification was made regarding cancellation of petitioner's caste certificate. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition wherein an interim order dated 19.11.2004 was passed directing the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner in service. Thereafter, final order dated 26.12.2005 was passed directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal available under the Act and further directed the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner in service pending finalisation of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. g) While so, since the petitioner was not keeping good health and unable to discharge her duties effectively, she submitted an application dated 30.09.2005 to the 3rd respondent seeking permission for voluntary retirement. However, the 3rd respondent vide his letter No.E/17/233/VR/AR/2 dated 14.11.2005 intimated that the petitioner's request for VRS could not be accepted because of an allegation of submission of bogus caste certificate and that the writ appeal No.1800 of 2004 was pending. h) The 1st respondent, without considering the petitioner's case properly, issued the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.140, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.12.2007 dismissing her appeal on the ground that there was no need of second thought as the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Kammara community. Hence the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter inter alia contending thus: a) This Court by its order dated 09.12.2010 directed the 2nd respondent to produce the records containing the application put up by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate. However, the Tahsildar, Puttur, informed that as per Appendix-D of the District Office Manual, the period of retention for domicile certificates issued was 10 years and as the said period was over, the file was not available. However, the Tahsildar, Puttur, informed that as per Appendix-D of the District Office Manual, the period of retention for domicile certificates issued was 10 years and as the said period was over, the file was not available. b) The contention of the petitioner that she only applied for issuance of caste certificate stating that her caste is Achary, is denied. The claimant was supposed to state as to which community she belonged. It is very much relevant to state so because the Issuing Authority differs from caste to caste in certain cases. The petitioner was trying to take shelter as she was well aware that the file containing the application was already destroyed long back. The entries in the school records are only made at the instance of her parents and as such, they have no serious bearing in support of the contention of the petitioner. c) The petitioner enjoyed the benefits attached to the ST community as the 3rd respondent in his counter stated that the petitioner was selected to the post on ST quota basing on the caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar and not in General category. She also got promotion against the point in the ST roster. d) The DLSC taking into consideration several reports obtained through concerned officers, examined the case of the petitioner in terms of Act 16 of 1993 and also the rules made thereunder. The petitioner having availed the benefits of appointment and promotion is now trying to escape throwing blame on the officials as if she did not claim ST certificate. e) The petitioner failed to substantiate her case that her ancestors migrated from Visakhapatnam District to Chittoor District. The petitioner's case that she only applied for Achary community certificate and the authorities committed mistake and that she was innocent is quite untenable for the reason that she was appointed under ST quota and availed all the benefits including promotion. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter contending thus: a) The petitioner was selected to the post of Office Assistant on ST quota basing on the caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar,Puttur, dated 22.10.1977 and not in General category. The petitioner's averment that she has not availed any service benefits under ST category during her 27 years of service in the BSNL, is wrong and baseless. The petitioner's averment that she has not availed any service benefits under ST category during her 27 years of service in the BSNL, is wrong and baseless. She enjoyed two benefits in SC roster. One is her recruitment in the Department and the other is OTBP promotion against the point in ST roster. In accordance with the promotion under OTBP scheme, generally the officials, who have competed 16 years of service in the basic cadre (above 10 years in case of SC/ST), are eligible for promotion to next higher scale under OTBP scheme. She got OTBP promotion under ST quota without completing 16 years of service. Now, the petitioner is working as SS (O) in the office. For whatever service rendered by the petitioner in the Department, she got the pay and allowance, advance and increments/promotions as ST official. b) The Federation of All India Telecom ST/SC Employees, Tirupati District Branch, Tirupati complained to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner belongs to Kamsala (Goldsmith) community and she managed and obtained Kammara (ST) community certificate by fraudulent means and requested the 3rd respondent to take further action. The 3rd respondent referred the said complaint to the 2nd respondent who submitted his report dated 31.10.2004 stating that the caste certificate of the petitioner indicating as Kammara (ST) issued by the Tahsildar was cancelled. The 2nd respondent requested the 3rd respondent to take further course of action with regard to the appointment of the petitioner under reservation (ST) basing on a false Kammara caste certificate as per rules and report compliance. Accordingly, the order of the 2nd respondent was served to the petitioner on 06.12.2004. c) While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.09.2005 for voluntary retirement. She was advised on 14.10.2005 to apply for voluntary retirement before three months and with specific recommendations from her Controlling Office. After receiving the said letter, she applied again for VRS. On verifying the records, her application was not accepted for the following reasons: a) an allegation of submission of bogus caste certificate is pending against the writ petitioner. b) writ appeal No.1800 of 2004 was pending before the High Court. The same was informed to the petitioner. After receiving the said letter, she applied again for VRS. On verifying the records, her application was not accepted for the following reasons: a) an allegation of submission of bogus caste certificate is pending against the writ petitioner. b) writ appeal No.1800 of 2004 was pending before the High Court. The same was informed to the petitioner. It is learnt that after thorough enquiry, the Government held that the petitioner did not belong to ST and the caste certificate submitted by her was false and basing on the said false certificate, the petitioner got appointment to a post which was reserved for a member of ST, and accordingly cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner stating that she is not entitled to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by her and her services are liable to be terminated. The 3rd respondent thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner filed a reply stating that in the appointment order issued by the 3rd respondent, it was not communicated that her appointment was made to a post under ST quota. Further, to the best of her knowledge, the petitioner was never asked for any service benefits under SC quota. Having regard to her meritorious career, she must have been appointed to the post of Office Assistant in General category in the 3rd respondent organisation. 6. It is further contended that as per the rules in vogue, there was no prescription that the applicant should indicate community to which she belongs while applying for caste certificate. An individual seeking caste certificate was required to submit an application on a white paper addressing to the Competent Authority i.e., Tahsildar/MRO indicating the caste to which the individual belongs and it shall be the responsibility of the Revenue Department to identify the community to which a particular caste belongs, after conducting necessary enquiry, before issuing caste certificate. The petitioner in her application never mentioned that she belonged to ST community. Therefore, she was no way responsible for her being recognized under ST community as per the caste certificate dated 22.10.1977 issued by the then Tahsildar. 7. Heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Ms. C. Vani Reddy, learned standing counsel for BSNL representing the 3rd respondent. 8. 7. Heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Ms. C. Vani Reddy, learned standing counsel for BSNL representing the 3rd respondent. 8. Impugning the G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 26.12.2007 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, learned counsel for petitioner would strenuously argue that in those proceedings, both 1st and 2nd respondents have not properly appreciated the case of the petitioner and drew a wrong conclusion as if the petitioner had fraudulently obtained caste certificate by representing that she belongs to Achary (Kammara) a Scheduled Tribe community and with its aid secured job in BSNL. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioner is Achary (Kamsali) which is a goldsmith community and recognized as BC community. In the year 1977, when she applied for caste certificate, she only mentioned her caste as Achary without mentioning her community as Kamsali or Kammara or Kammari etc. and most prominently without also mentioning whether her caste comes under SC/ST/BC/OC. Learned counsel argued that during that period, an applicant was only required to submit a formal application on a white paper by mentioning his caste for issuance of caste certificate and it was the responsibility of concerned revenue officer i.e., Tahsildar to get an enquiry conducted and to find out whether the applicant belonged to the caste mentioned in the said application and further, whether the applicant's caste comes under SC/ST/BC/OC community. Then he used to issue certificate accordingly. Going by the procedure in vogue in 1977, the petitioner put up an application for issuance of caste certificate by mentioning her caste as Achary. However, after enquiry the Tahsildar while issuing certificate dated 22.10.1997, certified that the petitioner belongs to Achary (Kammara) which is recognized as ST under the Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe list modification order of 1956. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner was absolutely unaware whether Achary caste comes under ST community or not and it was the duty of the revenue authorities to mention correct caste and community of the applicant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault and no motives can be attributed to her. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner never claimed job or promotion on the basis of ST category. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault and no motives can be attributed to her. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner never claimed job or promotion on the basis of ST category. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the finding in the impugned orders that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate by fraudulent means. She placed reliance on the decision in I.B.Rajendra Prasad Vs. The Director of Tribal Welfare and others, (1996) 2 ALD 751 : MANU/AP/0865/1996. Learned counsel incidentally submitted that the petitioner retired fr om service on 31.05.2014. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare argued that the petitioner knowing fully well that she belongs to Achary (Kamsali) BC community, however, fraudulently obtained a certificate as if Achary (Kammara) ST and with the help of the said certificate, she secured a job in BSNL reserved for the ST category and she also obtained promotion. He would submit that it is too na ve for the petitioner to submit that she only mentioned her caste as Achary in the application and it was the responsibility of the revenue officials to mention the correct caste and community of the petitioner and if any mistake is committed by them, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Learned Government Pleader would vehemently argue that the dishonest intention of the petitioner is writ large from the fact that after obtaining the certificate she never informed to the revenue officials that she did not belong to ST community and a wrong certificate was issued by mistake and sought for rectification. On the other hand, with the aid of the said certificate she obtained job and promotion and served throughout. Had there been no complaint against her, she would have successfully completed her job with the ST status. Considering all these aspects only the respondent authorities have rightly cancelled her caste certificate. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent also argued in similar lines. 10. The point for consideration is, whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow? 11. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the facts, record and above respective arguments of either side. The precise case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Viswabrahmana community, people of which community suffixes their names with 'Achary'. 10. The point for consideration is, whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow? 11. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the facts, record and above respective arguments of either side. The precise case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Viswabrahmana community, people of which community suffixes their names with 'Achary'. Thus, in a way, the term 'Achary' is synonyms with Viswabrahmana community. The petitioner's further case is that her parents are Goldsmiths by profession. It is not her case that she belongs to Achary (Kammara). It is also not her case that she belongs to ST community. These facts she admitted even during the passing of the orders dated 29.08.2008 in W.V.M.P.No.1399 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.601 of 2008, wherein, this Court, while dismissing the vacate petition, made the interim stay order as absolute. 12. Be that it may, her further case is that during the period 1977, there was no prescribed format to apply for caste certificate and an applicant as per the procedure in vogue used to submit a white paper application mentioning his caste therein for issuance of caste certificate. Thereupon, the concerned Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry and confirming the caste of the applicant as mentioned in the application, used to issue the caste certificate and also mentioning the community i.e., OC/BC/SC/ST to which the caste of the applicant applies. The petitioner's strong argument is that in similar manner, she applied for caste certificate by mentioning her caste as Achary and she did not mention therein either as 'Achary (Kammara)' or that her community is ST. However, the Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry, issued a certificate dated 22.10.1977 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Achary (Kammara) which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes List Modification Order of 1956. Thus in essence, the formidable contention of the petitioner is that if the petitioner was referred as Achary (Kammara), a Scheduled Tribe, that mistake or fault entirely rests upon the Revenue Authorities but not the petitioner and she cannot be blamed. Of course, it is also her case that she never claimed herself as belonging to ST community and tried to get job and other benefits attached to ST community. She was selected as Office Assistant in the BSNL purely out of merit. 13. Of course, it is also her case that she never claimed herself as belonging to ST community and tried to get job and other benefits attached to ST community. She was selected as Office Assistant in the BSNL purely out of merit. 13. This argument though looks sound at the first blush, however neither there is logic nor truth in it. As stated supra, the petitioner's family belongs to Achary (Goldsmith) caste. As can be seen from the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.140, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.12.2007, during the enquiry of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, it was found that the petitioner's father Sri A. Krishnamachary, Nagari, Chittoor District, belongs to Viswabrrhmin (B.C. community). The enquiry in Nagari village revealed that 'Kamsali' caste people are called as Viswabrahmin, Achary/Kammari. The petitioner's elder brother Venugopalachary is a Goldsmith (Kamsali) at Nagari. The petitioner's husband T.N.Govindarajan and his elder brothers Sivalingachary, Krishnamurthy are all natives of Nagari village and they belong to Viswabrahmin caste (B.C.). a) In the light of the above facts, assuming that the petitioner while applying for caste certificate, only mentioned her caste as 'Achary' and nothing more and the Tahsildar, Puttur, by mistake issued certificate referring her as Achary (Kammara) i.e., Blacksmith and as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community, certainly the duty is cast on the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Revenue Authorities about the said mistake to get it rectified. On the other hand, the petitioner has merrily grabbed the certificate and by dint of such a false certificate, obtained the post of Office Assistant in the office of the 3rd respondent under ST quota and also secured promotion earmarked for that community. Though the petitioner feigned that no dubious role was played by her in obtaining the certificate and securing the job and promotion, the facts are writ large to disprove her pretentive naivety. The 3rd respondent in his counter has clearly stated that the petitioner was selected to the post of Office Assistant on ST quota basing on the caste certificate dated 22.10.1977 produced by her but not in general category. In the counter, it is further stated that she enjoyed OTBP promotion against the point in the ST roster. The 3rd respondent in his counter has clearly stated that the petitioner was selected to the post of Office Assistant on ST quota basing on the caste certificate dated 22.10.1977 produced by her but not in general category. In the counter, it is further stated that she enjoyed OTBP promotion against the point in the ST roster. In the light of overwhelming facts and record, the contention of the petitioner that she was innocent and honest and that she did not obtain a false certificate by misrepresentation of facts and that she did not use the said certificate for securing job and promotion cannot be countenanced. b) There is another reason to discard her contention. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.C3/1972/2002 dated 31.10.2004 would show that when a complaint was given by the Federation of All India SC/ST Telecom Employees, Tirupati District Branch, against the petitioner's caste, the same was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, who is the Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, and thereupon, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the R.D.O., Chittoor to conduct enquiry and submit a detailed report and accordingly, R.D.O. submitted a report to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the DLSC for a detailed enquiry. After receiving the report from the DLSC, while accepting the said report, the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 31.10.2004. In his report, he referred the enquiry particulars of the R.D.O., Chittoor as well as that of the DLSC. It is curious to note that before the aforesaid authorities, the petitioner contended as if she belonged to Achary (Kammara) ST, in support of her caste certificate. If really the petitioner was honest in her approach, she should have conceded that she was Achary (Kamsalii) but not Achary (Kammara) ST as mentioned in the certificate. Thus, in any view, since inception the petitioner's conduct in obtaining the caste certificate was highly questionable and doubtful. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly passed the impugned orders and there is no ground to review the same. Thus, in any view, since inception the petitioner's conduct in obtaining the caste certificate was highly questionable and doubtful. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly passed the impugned orders and there is no ground to review the same. Further, in a matter of this nature, the judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited to the extent whether the concerned committee which is a quasi judicial authority, has conducted the enquiry transparently by giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case and whether principles of natural justice were followed. However, this Court cannot sit on appeal against the findings in such enquiries. It was so held in the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) AIR SC 2151 : MANU/SC/0475/1975. In the instant case, it is not the complaint of the petitioner that no due enquiry was conducted and fair opportunity was given to submit her case. Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice to warrant interference with the impugned proceedings. 14. The decision in I.B.Rajendra Prasad's case (1 supra) relied upon by the petitioner can be distinguished on facts. In that case, facts were that the petitioner therein belonged to 'Manya Kapu' community and to that effect, a certificate dated 22.11.1976 was issued by the Head Mistress of the school. Even prior to that, on 06.01.1975, the Government had issued Memo No.2451-F2/73-15 clarifying that 'Manya Kapu' was synonyms with Konda Kapu and the Government of India was already requested incorporate Manya Kapu in the list of Scheduled Tribes and the Government of India had conveyed its acceptance and the Bill would be introduced in the Parliament. While so, the Tahsildar, Nuzivid, issued a caste certificate to the petitioner on 29.11.1976 as Manya Kapu (ST). Pursuant to the said certificate, the petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1979 as Junior Engineer in respondent corporation under ST quota and was later promoted as Assistant Engineer in reserved category on 25.03.1983. Added to it, even prior to the issue of Memo by the Government on 06.05.1975, a decision was rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.5379 of 1973 on 06.02.1974 holding that Manya Kapu is a sub-sect of Konda Kapu which is a Scheduled Tribe. Added to it, even prior to the issue of Memo by the Government on 06.05.1975, a decision was rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.5379 of 1973 on 06.02.1974 holding that Manya Kapu is a sub-sect of Konda Kapu which is a Scheduled Tribe. Then, at a subsequent stage, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.864 of 1982 on 18.01.1983 held that Manya Kapu is ineligible to be treated as a sub-sect of Konda Kapu unless the said community itself is mentioned as ST in the Scheduled Tribes order. Basing on the subsequent judgment, when the petitioner's appointment was to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner produced a false certificate and obtained job, he filed the writ petition and obtained an interim stay. In the meanwhile, the R.D.O. cancelled his caste certificate which was issued in 1976. In that backdrop, the High Court of A.P. observed that the petitioner never made any false representation with regard to his social status. His appointment and promotion under the reserved category was based upon the decision of the High Court rendered on 06.02.1974 and till another decision came on 18.01.1983, everybody was under the impression that Manya Kapu was a Scheduled Tribe. Even the Government also acknowledged the same. Thus, having found the honesty in the approach the petitioner therein, the High Court ordered that no action was to be taken against him making out a case of his having produced a false caste certificate and getting appointment and promotion. It was further held that he was allowed to retain the present post, but his caste certificate issued would be treated as nonest in the eye of law. In the instant case, facts are quite different from above. The record shows, the petitioner has deliberately obtained a caste certificate such as Achary (Kammara) ST and even assuming that she had no role in issuance of such certificate, nevertheless she did not inform to the authorities about the mistake and on the other hand, she used the said certificate and obtained job and promotion. As rightly argued by learned Government Pleader, had there been no complaint, she would have continued her career with that certificate. Unlike in the cited decision, the petitioner's community was not based on the Memo of the Government or the order of the Court. Therefore, the said decision has no application. As rightly argued by learned Government Pleader, had there been no complaint, she would have continued her career with that certificate. Unlike in the cited decision, the petitioner's community was not based on the Memo of the Government or the order of the Court. Therefore, the said decision has no application. The respondent authorities have rightly cancelled her certificate and the petitioner's request that she may be held as innocent in the process cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.