Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition arises out of O.A.No.3891 of 1997 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The said OA was filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of the second respondent dated 24.05.1997 and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service as Firka Surveyor. 3. The Original Application was admitted and pending the Original Application, the Tribunal granted an interim order dated 06.06.1997, staying the impugned proceedings. The said order was directed to be continued until further orders by a subsequent order of the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay in the post of Surveryor-cum-Draftsman in the year 1983 and was posted to work under the Updating Registry Scheme (UDR), Karur. It was stated that as soon as the work is completed, they will be posted to other unit. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed in time scale of pay in the year 1988. As he had passed the required tests, he was promoted as Firka Surveyor in the year 1996 temporarily. In the order itself, it was stated that it was a temporary promotion. It was also indicated that the promotion to the petitioner was given, pending final reply from the Education Department, regarding the educational qualification, for which correspondences was taking place between the second respondent and the Education Department. The post of Firka Surveyor was given to him based on his seniority and the qualifications of passing departmental tests. The minimum general qualification for holding the post of Field Surveyor/Draftsman requires a pass in S.S.L.C. (old pattern) or 10th Std.,(New pattern). In order to prepare the establishment list of Field Surveyors, the service books of all the Surveyors were obtained from their respective offices by the second respondent and when it was verified it was found that the entries made in the service book of the petitioner that he has failed old S.S.L.C./Plus one passed (first year only). 5. The fact of the matter was the petitioner who had failed in the S.S.L.C got admitted in Higher secondary and appeared for the Plus two examination, but failed in that public examination also. Therefore, queries were made with the Director of Government Examination as to whether the petitioners qualification was in consonance with the minimum general educational qualification prescribed for the post. Therefore, queries were made with the Director of Government Examination as to whether the petitioners qualification was in consonance with the minimum general educational qualification prescribed for the post. The Director of Government Examination by his letter dated 08.05.1997 informed that the petitioner had not obtained 35% of marks in four subjects, it cannot be held that he has passed .S.L.C and that the petitioner did not obtain 35% marks in English and History in the Higher Secondary Public Examination, and therefore it cannot be said that he had passed the higher secondary examination. Therefore, the proceedings dated 24.05.1997 came to be issued terminating the service of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 06.06.1997 granted an order of interim stay of the termination. The stay was granted on the ground that even if it was held to be an irregular appointment, it has to be cancelled within a reasonable period and having allowed the petitioner to work for more than a decade, termination cannot be done on that basis. The said interim order came to be extended from time to time on 20.06.1997, 18.08.1997, 110. 1997, 210. 1997, 111. 1997 and 211. 1997. In the last order, the interim stay came to be extended until further orders and the said order will endure to the benefit of the petitioner even till date. Though an application was filed by the respondents in M.A.No.6598 of 1998 for vacating the interim order, the same was not taken up by the respondents for the reasons best known. 7. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner himself is aware that he had not passed S.S.L.C or equivalent examination. According to the respondents, only to set right the error, he was terminated and hence, no notice was given. It must be stated that whether a person is having minimum general educational qualification (MGEQ) ought to be studied at the time when a person is appointed to Government service whether it is a consolidate pay or a temporary employment. 8. In the present case, the petitioner was not only appointed on consolidated pay in the year 1983, but subsequently he was brought under time scale of pay in the year 1988 and after allowing him to write the departmental test, he was promoted as a Firka Surveyor in the year 1996. 8. In the present case, the petitioner was not only appointed on consolidated pay in the year 1983, but subsequently he was brought under time scale of pay in the year 1988 and after allowing him to write the departmental test, he was promoted as a Firka Surveyor in the year 1996. Thus the petitioner before coming to the Tribunal had completed 14 years of service and after filing the Original Application, he had put in another 11 years of service. Therefore, the petitioner had worked in the department for more than 25 years and he cannot be terminated even without show cause notice. 9. Though the Courts have held that if the initial appointment was contrary to the minimum qualification prescribed, such an appointment cannot be held to be a regular appointment. But in cases where a person produces a false or forged certificate showing higher educational qualifications, the Courts have constantly held that such a termination was void ab initio and therefore, it does not require any procedure to be followed like framing charge memo or conducting enquiry and termination can be made straight away. 10. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had given a false certificate for entry into service. Even otherwise, the department had taken 14 years to verify the claim made by the petitioner whether his completion of 11th standard will make him eligible to satisfy the MGEQ prescribed under the relevant Rules. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that he could be terminated without notice cannot be accepted. The petitioner had become a Government servant and he is entitled for protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh. If they so desire, they will also take not of 25 years of service put in by the petitioner including passing of the departmental test for further promotions. No costs.