The importance of documentary evidence, limitations of interference with findings of fact, and the need for recognition as per the Presidential Notification/Order under Article 341 or 342 to avail of the benefit of reservation.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. The writ petitioner claims to belong to Konda Reddy Community. He was issued a certificate by the Deputy Tahsildar, Avinashi. Subsequently, by order dated 05.06.2000 in Ref. No.159906/96 L3 dated 05.06.2000, the Collector, Coimbatore District, the 1st respondent herein, found the said Certificate to be bogus and that it was cancelled by the District Vigilance Committee and therefore, the 2nd respondent was directed to initiate action for terminating the services of the petitioner without further notice.

2. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11286 of 2000 on the ground that even though he had filed an appeal before the State Level Committee against the order passed by the District Level Vigilance Committee, his termination of service must be set aside on the ground that the District Level Committee consisted of only two members and it had no jurisdiction to cancel the Community Certificate. For this, the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Kumari Madhuri Patil -vs-Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (AIR 1995 SC 94). The petitioners case was strengthened by the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2969 of 2002 dated 25.03.2003 by which it was held that any cancellation of appointment pursuant to the findings of the District Vigilance Committee consisting of two officers cannot be upheld since such a Committee was not constituted in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of termination. While considering the question whether he should be reinstated with backwages, the respondent referred to a judgment in W.P.No.1825 of 2001 dated 27.06.2003 where it was held that the question of reinstatement would depend on the final decision rendered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, W.P.No.11286 of 2007 was disposed of as follows:-

"9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, the following order is passed:

.(i) The petitioner would be reinstated in service and would get his salary thereafter:

.(ii) The matter relating to validity of the community certificate shall be considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing all the concerned parties, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records.

(iii) The first respondent is directed to forward all the relevant records to the State Level Scrutiny Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

.(iv) If it is ultimately found that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community, the 2nd respondent Bank shall be obliged to pay all the arrear wages from the date of termination till the reinstatement pursuant to the present order.

.(v) On the other hand, it is found that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy Community the 2nd respondent shall be obliged to issue fresh order of termination against the petitioner.

.(vi) The order regarding reinstatement should be carried out within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order."

3. Against the said order, the 2nd respondent filed W.A.No.4033 of 2000. This writ appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the order directing consideration of the matter afresh by the State Level Scrutiny Committee became final.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner went before the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee and by proceedings No.16334/ADW II/2000 dated 22.03.2004, his community certificate was cancelled. Against that, the present petitions, viz., W.P.No.13557 of 2004 has been filed against the cancellation of the community certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and W.P.No.13558 of 2004 has been filed for quashing the order of termination by the employer.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decisions reported in Indian Bank -vs- R.Rani and another {(2