The validity of community certificates for Scheduled Tribe status must be considered by a three-member committee, as directed by the Supreme Court.

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Elango, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

2. The petitioner entered into service as a reserved category belonging to Scheduled Tribe. While he was in service, a doubt arose regarding his community status and the matter was decided on 29. 2000 by a two member District Level Committee, which found that the certificate was incorrect and accordingly cancelled the certificate. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the State Level Committee consisting of three members by an order dated 3. 2002. In the meantime while all these controversies were going on, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and had retired with effect from 22. 1997. After the dismissal of the appeal by the State Level Committee, a charge memo was issued by the Government for the purpose of considering as to whether pension should be withheld or not on the allegation that the petitioner had entered into service on the basis of a false certificate regarding his community status.

3. The petitioner filed Original Application No.1101 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging such charge memo. The said case having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.20838 of 2003. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.2542 of 2003 challenging the cancellation of the community certificate by the District Level committee and confirmed by the State Level Committee.

4. So far as the writ petition (W.P.No.2542 of 2003) challenging order passed by the District Level Committee and the State Level Committee is concerned, the matter is no longer res integra. In Maduri Patel v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1995 Supreme Court 94), the Supreme Court had laid down the Law as well as the procedure relating to consideration of the question of validity of a certificate relating to a person claiming to be Scheduled Tribe and had directed for establishment of a three member committee to enquire into such matters.

5. In the present case, the community certificate was cancelled by the District Level Committee consisting of two members whereas the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court categorically contemplated that such Committee to consider the question of validity of otherwise of the community certificate of a person allegedly belonging to Schedule Tribe should consist of three members. It is no doubt true that such order of the two member District level committee was subsequently affirmed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee consisting of three members, which had been apparently given the power of hearing the appeals against such orders passed by the District Level Committee.

6. There was divergences of opinions in the Madras High Court as to whether the order passed by the District Level Committee cancelling the community certificate of a person can be considered to be legal, if it is ultimately affirmed by the State Level Committee. One line of decision laid down that since the decision of the two Member District Level Committee was void as being contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, there was a parallel line of thinking to the effect that since the State Level Committee consisting of three members had confirmed such order of District Level Committee in Maduri Patels case, such order could be considered as valid and the cancellation of the community certificate could be upheld.

.7. Ultimately in a very recent decision reported in 2008(1) MLJ 125 SC (G.M., INDIAN BANK v. R. RANI), the Supreme Court has apparently approved of the first line of thinking and has upheld one such decision by observing as follows:-

."8. So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of the view that as the constitution of the District Level Committee was in infarction of law laid down by this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl.Commr.Tribal Development, Thane and others (s