Judgment :- The above writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings NO.R.XIII-25/98-Adm-1 dated 28.4.1999 confirming the order of the second respondent in proceedings No.R.XIII.25/97-Estt-3 dated 18.09.1988 in turn confirming the order of the third respondent in proceedings No.P.VIII-5/97-51-EC, ii dated 29.07.1997 and to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner joined the service of Central reserve police force in the year 1982 as constable and promoted as LNIAK in the year 1992. After 13 years of service, on verification of records it was found that his school certificate was forged and on further verification it was found that the particular school certificate was given to him by a woman by name Nallamma. Therefore, departmental enquiry was conducted and after framing charges, the enquiry officer found the charges were proved and an order of dismissal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority. Against that an appeal was preferred and the appellate authority confirmed the same. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the time of enquiry, it was submitted by the petitioner that since when he joined the service there is no educational qualification required to become a police constable. But in 1975 onwards the rules are specific that to become a construable in Central Reserve Police Force, minimum qualification prescribed is a pass in matriculation. Therefore, it is seen that when he joined service in the year 1982, he should have possessed a matriculation certificate. 5. Further, Office Memorandum in G.O.No.49/93 Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 19.05.1993 it is stated as follows: "A question has now arisen as to whether a Government servant can be discharged fromswervice where it is discovered later that the Government Servant was not qualified or eligible for his initial recruitment ins service. The Supreme Court in its Judgment in District Collector, Vizianagaram vs. Tripura Sundari Devi ((1990) 4 SLR, 237) “It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The Supreme Court in its Judgment in District Collector, Vizianagaram vs. Tripura Sundari Devi ((1990) 4 SLR, 237) “It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved re all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice." The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has now been decided that when it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If he is a probationer or a temporary Government Servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Govt. servant, an inquiry prescribed in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA )Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed /dismissed from service. In no circumstances should and other punishment be imposed". 6. From the above it is seen that when charges are proved as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, no other punishment except order of dismissal could be passed. Therefore, in this case, the department cannot pass any other order except the order of dismissal. In the case of forgery in producing the school certificate, this Court also cannot show any sympathy. Further, there is no post available which does not require educational qualification in the above department. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.19521 of 2000 is also dismissed.