15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the names of two persons, who are said to have been enquired, have been mentioned and those two persons are totally strangers and after the petitioner made enquiries, he came to know that those persons were close friends of the petitioner's opponent. Further, the names of those persons do not find place in the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, dated 24.06.2011, which will go to show that the same are subsequently included to show as if there is some genuinity. The petitioner had stated the truth before the second respondent that he continues to follow Hindu religion, but the second respondent mechanically dismissed the appeal petition and therefore, the order passed by the second respondent, dated 13.07.2018, is liable to be quashed. Further, it is submitted that though the impugned proceedings is dated 02.07.2017, the date shown in the signature of the Chairman of the Committee and two others is 02.07.2019, which raises a doubt as regards the genuinity. That apart, the proceeding are void ab initio , since it is not in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.235, Revenue Department, dated 26.06.2015. In terms of the said Government Order, the Issuing Authority for Scheduled Caste community certificate is Tahsildar, the Appellate Authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Grievance Redressal Authority is the District Collector and in terms of the amendment issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.147, dated 17.03.2016, the Issuing Authority for Scheduled Tribes is the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Appellate Authority is the District Collector and the State Level Scrutiny Committee is the Grievance Redressal Forum. Prior to the amendment issued in G.O.(Ms) No.147, dated 17.03.2016, the Grievance Redressal Authority for Scheduled Tribes was the District Collector and the Chairman, District Level Vigilance Committee. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Vigilance Committee is wholly without jurisdiction.
