The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough and satisfactory consideration of the petitioner's contentions and documentary evidence by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and relevant legal provisions.

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Jakkir Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and perused the materials placed on record.

2. The Petitioner was issued with a Community Certificate as belonging to Kondareddis Community by the Tahsildar, Mettur on 16.12.1978 which has been cancelled by the first respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee by proceedings No.1553/CV4(2)/2013-8, dated 07.04.2016. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition impeaching the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the first respondent.

3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had secured employment in the services of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is now known as TANGEDCO, in the year 1982 as assessor against a vacancy exclusively reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the strength of the aforesaid Community Certificate dated 16.12.1978. When that community certificate of the Petitioner was sent for verification, it had been held by the Revenue Authorities by earlier proceedings that the Petitioner does not belong to Kondareddis Community, but those orders had been set aside by this Court without going into merits and directed fresh determination as to whether the Petitioner belonged to Kondareddis Scheduled Tribe Community. Ultimately the verification of Scheduled Tribe Community status of the Petitioner reached the State Level Scrutiny Committee and on receipt of report dated 23.07.2015 of the Vigilance Cell, the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 18.09.2015. The Petitioner had sent an explanation dated 03.10.2015 for the said show cause notice and when he was called to attend enquiry on 22.03.2016, the anthropologist in the State Level Scrutiny Committee verified his unique customs and cultural traits and concluded that he does not belong to Kondareddis Scheduled Tribe Community and his claim for the same was not genuine. Hence, on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell and the observation made by the anthropologist in the report, the Kondareddis Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate issued to the Petitioner was cancelled and it was recommended to the District Collector, Salem and the employer/third respondent to take stringent criminal action against him for obtaining bogus Community Certificate.

4. The legal position with regard to the procedure to be followed for verification of community certificate has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paras 21 to 23 in the decision in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims and others [2012] 1 SCC 113, which are extracted below:-

"21. We are of the view that for the purpose of examining the caste claim under the Rules, the following observations of this Court in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] still hold the field: (SCC p. 255, para 13)

“13 .… 5. … The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste, etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned, etc.”

22. It is manifest from the aforeextracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents