The legal principle established is the requirement of clear-cut proof of belonging to the recognized caste, reconversion to the original religion, and evidence of acceptance by the community for issuing Scheduled Caste Community Certificate.

1. The case of the Petitioner is that his forefathers were Hindus belonging to Adi Dravidar Parayar Community. But subsequently his parents converted to Christianity. Though he was born to parents who were converted to Christianity, he had reconverted to Hinduism by Sudhi ceremony conducted by Aryasamaj at Madurai on 06.02.1990 and thereafter, he has been strictly following Hindu custom and rituals and had stopped going to the Church. Though he had married a Christian he had insisted that the marriage should be registered under the Special Marriage Act, wherein his name has been recorded as a Hindu and his wife later converted to Hinduism. It is further claimed by him that his family is practising Hindu customs and he is accepted as belonging to Hindus by his community people. The Petitioner had been issued a Scheduled Caste Community Certificate dated 02.09.1991 by the Tahsildar, Dindugal Taluk, showing that he belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar community. On the strength of the aforesaid Community Certificate, the Petitioner had secured appointment in the Income Tax Department on 09.09.1998 as an Upper Division Clerk.

2. The aforesaid Community Certificate of the Petitioner was forwarded for verification of its authenticity to the District Level Vigilance Committee, Dindugal, which by proceedings dated 06.03.2002 relying upon the letter No. 81, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.09.2000 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, held that a Christianity by birth, on conversion to Hinduism, shall neither be eligible to get Scheduled Caste Certificate nor be eligible to enjoy the benefits of reservation. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the aforesaid order of the District Level Vigilance Committee was rejected by proceedings No. 7577/ADW-II/2002 dated 27.10.2004. Assailing the aforesaid orders of the State Level Scrutiny Committee confirming the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Mr. V. Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner specifically pleading before the District Level Vigilance Committee as well as the State Level Scrutiny Committee that his forefathers belonged to Adi Dravidar Parayar Community and practised Hinduism, that his parents alone had converted to Christianity and that he had reconverted to Hinduism and was accepted by the community people practising that religion, it had been erroneously held in the impugned orders that he could not claim as belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community and availed the benefits of reservation solely relying upon the letter bearing No. 81, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.09.2000 of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

5. A reading of the said letter of the Government of Tamil Nadu would reveal that the instructions therein were based on the judgment dated 25.01.1996 in S.L.P. No. 27571 of 1995 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in S. Swvigaradoss vs. Zonal Manager, F.C.I. AIR 1996 SC 1182 in which it had been held that a Christian by birth on conversion to Hinduism shall neither be eligible to get Scheduled Caste Community Certificate nor be eligible to enjoy the benefits of reservation. The said letter was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P. No. 14769 of 2002 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.04.2017, reported in Prof. I. Elangovan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai and Another, (2007) 3 MLJ 209, set aside para 2 of that letter and the authority concerned was directed to issue fresh clarification giving reference to other earlier