P. Jyothimani, J.

The petitioner in W.P.No.4354 and 21212 of 2007 is one and the same person. The petitioner in the said writ petitions is the sister of the petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007. While W.P.Nos.4354 and 4353 of 2007 are filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tuticorin, dated 13.04.2007, under which the certificates issued to them as belonging to Kattu Naicken community were cancelled, W.P.No.21212 of 2007 is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4354 of 2007, challenging the order of her employer/State Bank of India dated 24.04.2007, under which the petitioners services in the Bank were terminated on the basis of cancellation of community certificate by the District Level Vigilance Committee.

.2. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to Kattu Naicken community, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe and the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007 was selected and appointed as Clerk in the State Bank of India on 09.05.1983 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. She produced the community certificate dated 19.01.1983 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, which was given after due enquiry and her services were confirmed within a period of six months from the date of her initial appointment and at present, she is working in the Commercial Branch, Chennai under the control of the respondent. According to the petitioners, the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tuticorin had directed her sister K.Ganga Rani to appear for an enquiry with regard to her community status and she also appeared on 23.03.2007 before the District Level Vigilance Committee and submitted various documents to show that she belong to Kattu Naicken community. It is also stated that she submitted the community certificate of the petitioner in WP.4353 of 2007 K.Vanaja, who is her sister, apart from the community certificate of the petitioner.

3. The said Vanaja, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 has challenged the same proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee dated 13.04.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.111 Adi Dravidar Welfare (ADW-10) Department dated 06.07.2005. She has produced the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin dated 21.03.1979 and she was selected and appointed as Clerk in State Bank of India on 09.05.1983 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe and her services were confirmed within six months from her date of initial appointment and at present she is working in ADB Branch, Tirunelveli. The petitioner also states that her sister Ganga Rani was directed to appear for enquiry by the second respondent Committee on 23.03.2007 and she has also produced various documents to show that she belongs to Kattu Naicken community and she also produced the community certificate of the petitioner as well as Vijayalakshmi, who is the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007.

.4. At this point of time it is relevant to note, when the District Collector has passed an order cancelling the community certificate in respect of K.Ganga Rani, the said order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.13085 of 1998 on 112. 1999 with liberty to the respondents to take further action if necessary. Thereafter, when, again, the District Collector, District Level Vigilance Committee, Tuticorin by order dated 25.05.2000 has cancelled the community certificates issued to the said K.Ganga Rani as well as K.Vanaja, petitioner in W.P.No.4353 of 2007 and K.Vijayalakshmi, petitioner in W.P.Nos.4354 and 21212 of 2007, they have filed W.P.No.9064, 9065 and 9066 of 2000 respectively and this Court by order dated 05.09.2000, held that there is nothing on evidence to show that the District Collector has passed an order on behalf of District Level Vigilance Committee, and hence set aside the order with direction to the District Level Vigilance Committee to verify the certificates. It is also seen that in a writ petition filed by the said K.Ganga Rani in