Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned orders of the second respondent made in Ku. A. No. 4747/A3, dated 12.12.1997 and subsequent order made in Se.Mu.Aa. No. 4747/97-A3, dated 26.12.1997, and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondents to permit the petitioner, to join duty as Gang Mazdoor and give retrospective effect of monetary and service benefits. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner passed + 2 examination (Higher Secondary Exam) and joined in degree course, but he could not continue, due to financial difficulties. The petitioner belongs to Backward Class community. The first respondent called for the applications for the post of Gang Mazdoor, from eligible candidates and the eligibility prescribed are as follows: • (i) Hale and healthy personality; • (ii) Resident of Native Districts; • (iii) Age not above 35 years; and • (iv) Completed atleast 5th Standard. 3. The petitioner having satisfied eligibility, applied for the said post with necessary certificates, namely: • (i) Physical fitness (Medical) Certificate • (ii) Community Certificate • (iii) Transfer Certificate • (iv) + 2 Mark sheets. 4. The respondents, after scrutinizing the applications, called the petitioner for interview on 3.9.1997. According to the petitioner, he appeared along with original documents and the petitioner was selected and appointed by an order dated 6.11.1997. However, the respondents refused to permit the petitioner to join duty, as per the appointment order dated 6.11.1997. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the third respondent on 8.11.1997 and no reply having been received, on 12.12.1997, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the second respondent. It is averred in the affidavit that the third respondent orally informed the petitioner that the petitioner is over-qualified, as the prescribed qualification is only 5th Standard. Due to the said stand taken by the third respondent, the petitioner filed Original Application in O. A. No. 10387 of 1997, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and by an order dated 24.12.1997, the Tribunal gave a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty, as per the appointment order dated 6.11.1997, within a period of two weeks. As per the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 24.12.1997, the petitioner approached the third respondent with a representation dated 26.12.1997, and requested the third respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty. Thereafter, on 26.12.1997, the impugned order was passed by cancelling the appointment order issued to the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is over-qualified, as he has passed + 2 and produced Transfer Certificate of degree college and also on the ground that the petitioner refused to receive the show cause notice, which confirms his act of concealment of qualification. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of forwarding the application, he enclosed the certificates of the educational qualification, Transfer Certificate and at the time of interview, the petitioner showed the originals of the said certificates, and, therefore, the petitioner never concealed or tried to show any bogus certificates to try to cheat the authorities. 6. According to the petitioner, when he was at Chennai for filing the earlier O. A. No. 10387 of 1997, he was out of station, and, therefore, he could not receive the show cause notice sent by the second respondent and his mother being an illiterate, without knowing the contents of the same, refused to receive the said show cause notice sent by the second respondent. The said order of cancellation of appointment is challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 231 of 1998 and the same is now transferred and assigned as W.P. No. 6548 of 2006. 7. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit in this writ petition wherein, it is stated that due to the non-compliance of the earlier order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 24.12.1997, the petitioner filed contempt petition before the said Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and, thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to join duty, as per the order of the Divisional Engineer, Dindigul, dated 21.7.1999. The petitioner joined duty on 28.7.1999 as Gang Mazdoor, in the office of the Batlagundu Sub-Divisional Office (Highways) and he has continued in the said post. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 7.9.2002, the Government of Tamil Nadu abolished ten thousand posts of Gang Mazdoor, which was challenged by the Road Employees’ Association, and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 7.9.2002, the Government of Tamil Nadu abolished ten thousand posts of Gang Mazdoor, which was challenged by the Road Employees’ Association, and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition. When the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State of Tamil Nadu took a decision to reinstate the road employees and consequently, the petitioner was reinstated by the order of the Divisional Engineer (Highways) dated 11.2.2006. The petitioner joined duty on 13.2.2006 and as such, the petitioner is continuing in the said post till date. In the said order of reinstatement, it is stated that though the Gang Mazdoor posts were abolished and they were not allowed to work during the period (from 7.9.2002 to 11.2.2006) their services for the said period should be treated as ‘duty’ for all purposes. 9. The grievance of the petitioner now is that he is paid only consolidated pay of Rs. 1,500/-, even though the respondents are bound to pay time scale pay, after the completion of one year service. The respondents refused to pay the time scale pay to the petitioner, by stating that the O.A. No. 231 of 1998, is pending before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notification inviting applications for the said posts contains educational qualification as minimum 5th Standard and nowhere, it is stated that a person who has studied more than 5th Standard is not eligible to apply or debarred from submitting application. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 371, Highways Department, dated 19.8.1997, wherein, Ad hoc Rules were framed and in the said Rules also it is stated that the candidate must pass 5th Standard with good physical fitness and their names should be sponsored by the employment exchange. Citing the said Ad hoc Rules and the notification inviting applications, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed anything and applied along with the + 2 Mark statement and the Transfer Certificate issued by the college, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to join duty, as per the appointment order. Citing the said Ad hoc Rules and the notification inviting applications, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed anything and applied along with the + 2 Mark statement and the Transfer Certificate issued by the college, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to join duty, as per the appointment order. The cancellation of appointment order issued to the petitioner by the second respondent dated 26.12.1997, is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to get benefits from the date of appointment i. e., 6.11.1997. 12. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, submitted that since the petitioner is over-qualified, he is not entitled to be appointed to the post, for which, the qualification prescribed is only 5th Standard, and, therefore, the impugned order is valid. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government pleader for the respondents. 14. The points for consideration is whether the petitioner is disqualified from submitting the application for the appointment of the Gang Mazdoor, as he is higher qualified and whether the petitioner suppressed his qualification and obtained the order of appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered similar issues i. e., as to whether higher qualified persons can be appointed in lower level posts, if they are willing to work. 15. The notification issued by the Department clearly states that the candidate must have studied upto 5th Standard. The Ad hoc Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 371, Highways Department, dated 19.8.1997, also states that the candidate must have passed 5th Standard. Neither in the advertisement nor in the Ad hoc Rules, it is stated that the person, who has studied more than 5th Standard is not eligible to apply. The qualification prescribed is only a minimum and therefore, higher qualified persons are entitled to apply as per the notification issued. Hence, the petitioners application for the post of Gang Mazdoor, based on the + 2 qualification and Transfer Certificate obtained from the degree college cannot be treated as an invalid application and the said certificates are valid, and thereafter, the petitioner was given appointment order. The same cannot be treated as invalid or is entitled to be cancelled, on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the qualification. The same cannot be treated as invalid or is entitled to be cancelled, on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the qualification. It is not the case of the petitioner at all that he has studied only upto 5th Standard or passed 5th Standard alone. It is the specific case of the petitioner before the respondents that he has passed + 2 examination and has a Transfer Certificate from the college. 16. In the decision reported in the case of Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeriah and Others Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeriah and Others Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeriah and Others AIR 1993 SC 929 : (1992) 3 SCC 63 , issue arose was as to whether a higher qualified person can be appointed in the post of fair price shop dealer, the qualification prescribed for filling up the said post was upto 10th Standard. However, the person with graduate qualification was selected, which was subsequently cancelled, which was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “6. The decision to prefer an uneducated person over an educated person amounts to allowing premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault of the appellant is to have pursued his studies beyond 10th Class of his school. If he had discontinued his career as a student even earlier, say after passing 7th or 8th Class, he would have been running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross arbitrariness and, therefore, illegal discrimination. Pursuing this line, the State will have to be going in search of a more inefficient person and we do not know where this process would end. If we assume that since a better qualified person has got a better chance to succeed in life, an intelligent applicant who can run the shop efficiently should be rejected and a dim wirted fellow should be selected. This is an absurd situation.” 17. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur AIR 2000 SC 919 : (2000) 2 SCC 606 , considered a similar issue wherein, the appointment of Peon in Subordinate Judicial Services of the State of Maharashtra, was in issue where the qualification prescribed was upto 7th Standard. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur AIR 2000 SC 919 : (2000) 2 SCC 606 , considered a similar issue wherein, the appointment of Peon in Subordinate Judicial Services of the State of Maharashtra, was in issue where the qualification prescribed was upto 7th Standard. The candidate applied with S.S.L.C. qualification, was not found ineligible for the post, the said stand was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is held as follows: “21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case, in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.” 18. The contention that if a higher qualified person is appointed he will not perform his duties attached to the post is also answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is held as follows: “20. If an employee does not perform the duties attached to the post, disciplinary proceedings can certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his hands in despair and devise a method denying appointment to a person who otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed, he would not perform his duties (sic as) qualification prescribed is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the candidate”. 19. In the decision reported in the case of Munna Roy v. Union of India (2000) 9 SCC 283 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “We really fail to understand that if a candidate possesses a qualification higher than the required qualification and the advertisement itself had prescribed the same, then how can the Authority come to a conclusion that selection has been made by adopting a dubious method. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the authorities concerned quashing the selection panel and direct that the order of the Tribunal be implemented.” 20. In this case, the Government taking note of the unemployment problem thought fit to prescribe only minimum qualification in the Ad hoc Rules. It is common knowledge that for the entry level posts of Office Assistants in various Government Offices/Conductors in Transport Corporations, even postgraduates are submitting applications and are being selected due to difficulty in getting employment as per the qualification. The respondents without taking note of the ground reality has chosen to blame the petitioner and also passed the impugned order, which is highly irrational, arbitrary and illegal. 21. . Applying the said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of this case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be given all benefits as it is given to the batch-mates, who have been selected along with the petitioner from 7.11.1997. 22. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 3,000/-.