Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 in R.C.No.K4/112/2026, dated 04.05.2026 and to quash the same, and to consequently forbear the respondent No.3 and respondent No.4, or anyone acting under or through them from acting upon the said impugned proceedings in R.C.No.K4/112/2026 dated 04.05.2026.

ORDER

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in R.C.No.K4/112/2026, dated 04.05.2026 and consequently, forbear the respondent Nos.3 and 4 or anyone acting through them acting upon the said proceedings.

2. Upon hearing Mr.Manikanda Prabhu J, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that the District Level Vigilance Committee scrutinised the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate of the petitioner, in which he was mentioned as Hindu Adi Dravidar, as not genuine. Upon considering the facts of the case, it is seen that the petitioner’s father, who was originally belonging to the Hindu Adi Dravidar community, converted himself to Christianity in the year 1960. At that point of time, the petitioner was born in a Christian family in the year 1966. Subsequently, in the year 1983, the petitioner’s father and the petitioner thought it fit to convert into Hinduism. It is the case of the petitioner that his father took him to the Arya Samaj Centre, Chennai where re-conversion ceremonies were also done. The name of the father was changed from R.Ayyavoo James to R.Munusamy. The name of the son was changed from A.Soundararajan to M.Ravikumar.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner got the community certificate as Hindu Adi Dravidar Community vide Certificate, dated 10.12.1986. The certificate itself categorically mentions that the petitioner is originally Hindu Adi Dravidar converted Christian, re-converted to Hinduism, now belonging to Adi Dravidar Community. On the strength of the said Community Certificate issued, the petitioner got appointed in the fourth respondent office and he was working as Assistant Commissioner and was about to attain the age of superannuation on 30.05.2026. Just before his retirement, the respondents started verifying the genuineness of the Community Certificate. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner appeared before the respondents and produced all the documents which he could muster to claim that from the date of his re-conversion to Hinduism, he is a staunch follower of Hinduism. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his wife are Hindus. Their children are brought up only as Hindus. He only worships Hindu gods. His marriage as well as his daughter’s marriage all were solemnised as per Hindu rights and customs. In the teeth of all the material evidence on record, by considering only the look of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner and his family members are very fair in colour and males are very tall and are having good physique and they speak both Tamil and English and have curly hair, the certificate is held to be not genuine. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.

4. Mr.Manikanda Prabhu J, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the first finding that is given in the impugned order to dissentitle the petitioner is with reference to the caste status of the father. It is true that his father was originally known as R.Ayyavoo James and he converted into Hinduism and he was called as R.Munusamy. However, at the date of death, he was taken care by the younger brother of the petitioner, A.Selvarajan, who was still continuing the Christian faith and when the petitioner was working at Chennai, he had no control over where his father was burried and in view thereof, the younger brother buried his father in a Christian cemetery. The same alone cannot be put against the petitioner. Alternatively, th