Balakrishnan Nair, J.

Appellants 1 and 2 are sisters and third appellant is their brother. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by them under Section 12(3) of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). They challenge Annexure B order of the scrutiny committee under the Act issuing the following directions:-

"Considering all the facts detailed as above the scrutiny committee decide undoubtedly that the claimants Smt. K.K.Anila, PD Teacher, Government U.P.School, Odampally Poochakkal Alapuzha Dist., Shri. V.Baiju ICE Fitter NSRY, Naval Base Kochi and Smt. K.V.Seenamol CN II AR Naval Base Kochi do not belong to Malayaraya community of the Sch. Tribes but belong to the OBC Arayan Community.

The Committee recommends to the Government that the benefits enjoyed by them on psudo caste identity to be recovered from them. The revenue authorities will be informed not to issue any community certificate to them as Hindu Malayaraya hereafter. There shall be strict watch to see that none of the Araya Circles of Eruvallipra village of Thiruvalla Taluk get Sch. Tribes community certificates. The services of the above 3 claimants have to be terminated immediately and 3 Sch. Tribes candidates to be preferred for appointment in the respective vacancies. The committee decided to submit a copy of the proceedings to Government for follow up action as per GO(R) 16/95/SCSTDDD dated 8.5.1995"

The brief facts of the case are the following:-

2. The first appellant is employed under the Government as PD Teacher and appellants 2 and 3 are employed in the Naval Base at Cochin. All the three got employment under the scheduled tribe quota. The mother of the appellant Smt. Amminikutty got a declaration from this Court in O.P.274/1980 that she belongs to Hindu Malayaraya community. Their father was treated as member of the Araya community. In view of the government order (MS) 11/77 dated 25.1.1977, if one of the parents belongs to a scheduled tribe, the children were entitled to be treated as members of the scheduled tribe. Therefore the appellants got all benefits available to the members of the scheduled tribe in the matter of educational benefits as well as appointment to public services. When the official respondents raised some dispute regarding the caste status of the petitioners they approached this Court and by Annexure A judgment, a Division Bench of this Court declared that the petitioners will be entitled to get the benefits of the aforementioned G.O dated 25.1.1977, in view of the fact that their mother belongs to scheduled tribe. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-

"In the result, the appeal is disposed of finally declaring that since the mother of the petitioners belongs to schedule tribe, the petitioners will be entitled to all the benefits available to Scheduled Tribe under the Government order dated 25.1.1977, irrespective of the fact whether they themselves belong to Scheduled Tribe."

3. While so again the KIRTADS started an enquiry to ascertain the caste status of the petitioners which ended in issuance of Annexure B order by the scrutiny committee under the Act. Hence this appeal challenging the said order.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Ramkumar, who appeared for the appellants, submitted that though, in view of the enactment of the aforementioned Act, the statutory authorities concerned under the Act may hold enquiries to find the caste status of the appellants, but, even if an adverse finding is entered against the appellants in such an enquiry, such a finding can operate only prospectively by denying them the benefits available to schedule tribe in future. In this case they got the benefits of scheduled tribe based on valid orders of this Court and relevant government orders. Learned counsel also submitted that in this case without conducting a proper, genealogical study the scrutiny committee has