The main legal point established in the judgment is that conversion to Hinduism and acceptance by the community can entitle a converted individual to scheduled caste status, and a valid community certificate remains valid until cancelled.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 16. 1999, directing the petitioner to produce the community certificate obtained in her fathers name as the community certificate produced by the petitioner in the name of her husband cannot be accepted.

2. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit are as follows:

(a) Petitioner was born to the parents belonging to Adi Dravida Christian community and

passed B.Com degree. During her marriage with one Nathan, she re-converted to Hinduism and the marriage was solemnized under the Hindu rites on 210. 1992. Petitioners husband died in an accident on 14. 1996. Petitioner declared her status as she belongs to scheduled caste community, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee, dated 27. 1998 by stating that she re-converted to Hinduism in the name of D.Jayarani Nathan on 210. 1992.

(b) Petitioner applied for the post of Group-IV services conducted by the TNPSC for the year 1996-1997. She had produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, dated 33. 1993, wherein it is certified that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida community, which is recognized as a scheduled caste community, as per G.O.Ms.No.1564 dated 17. 1985 and the SC&ST Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Sl.No.204. Petitioner also produced a certificate from the Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, dated 10. 1996 to show that she is a destitute widow as her husband died on 14. 1996.

(c) The respondents, provisionally selected the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and the selection order was communicated by the second respondent through his memo dated 11. 1999. Petitioner was allotted to Tirunelveli Revenue District and she joined in service as Junior Assistant in Madhapuram Treasury Office, Tirunelveli District in February, 1999.

(d) While the petitioner was serving in the said post, she received a memo issued by the second respondent dated 16. 1999, wherein the petitioner was requested to produce a fresh community certificate obtained in her fathers name, as the community certificate already produced in the name of her husband cannot be accepted. Petitioner was also directed to produce the B.Com degree certificate or provisional certificate.

(e) The petitioner has no objection to produce the B.Com degree or provisional certificate and only the direction to produce the fresh community certificate obtained in her fathers name is challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.3626 of 1999. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by order dated 7. 1999 granted interim stay, which was ordered to continue until further orders on 17. 1999 and by virtue of the said order, petitioner is continuously serving in the Revenue Department as no further order is passed by the respondents.

(f) The grounds raised in the original application, which is now transferred to this Court and numbered as the above writ petition are that the petitioner has already converted herself to Hinduism on 210. 1992 and her marriage was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs; and that the petitioners late husband Nathan was a Hindu Adi Dravida and the petitioner having been converted to Hinduism and her marriage performed as per the Hindu rites and customs with the said Nathan, who was admittedly a Hindu Adi Dravida, the community accepted the petitioner as a Hindu Adi Dravida and taking note of the said facts, the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, issued community certificate to the petitioner on 33. 1993 and the said community certificate having not been cancelled or challenged by anybody, the respondents are bound to accept the said community certificate for all purposes and demanding fresh community certificate mentioning the name of the petitioners father, is unsustainable.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners fathers name was Devadasan and the said name being a Christian name, doubt arose as to whether the petitioner