JUDGMENT :- 1. In the first writ petition, the petitioner is the Association which is a registered society. They have come forward to challenge an order of the first respondent State Government, dated 24.3.2009 in proposing uniform punishment and the consequential direction issued by the second respondent, dated 30.03.2009 to all disciplinary authorities under his control and seeks to set aside the same. That writ petition was admitted on 28.4.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court ordered notice in the application for stay. Subsequently, that miscellaneous petition was closed and the writ petition was directed to be posted along with the subsequent writ petition filed by six petitioners. The respondent State has filed a counter affidavit, dated 3.5.2010. 2. In the second writ petition, six petitioners have challenged the very same order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the first respondent and the consequential order of the second respondent, dated 30.03.2009 and also the order of reversion, dated 31.8.2009 passed by the third respondent pursuant to the instructions issued reverting the petitioners from the post of Road Inspector Grade II to Gang Mazdoors and after setting aside the same, seeks for restoration to their original position as Road Inspectors Grade II. When the writ petition came up on 18.09.2009, notice of motion was ordered and an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 2.11.2010. A vacate stay application was filed by the State Government in M.P.No.3 of 2009. The said application was dismissed by this court on 16.12.2010. An application was also filed by certain third parties to get themselves impleaded in M.P.No.1 of 2010 and impleadment was also ordered. In view of the inter-connectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together. 3. It is seen from the records that in the Highways Department, about 10000 Gang Mazdoors were appointed in the year 1997 for supervising and maintaining various roads at the rate of 2 Gang Mazdoors per 8 Km. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Gang Mazdoor was a pass in 5th standard. After recruitment, certificates regarding their educational qualifications which were submitted by them were sent to the concerned educational officers for verification. The Educational Officers had subsequently reported that some of the certificates produced by certain employees were not genuine and they were false records. Hence, disciplinary action was initiated against those Gang Mazdoors. After recruitment, certificates regarding their educational qualifications which were submitted by them were sent to the concerned educational officers for verification. The Educational Officers had subsequently reported that some of the certificates produced by certain employees were not genuine and they were false records. Hence, disciplinary action was initiated against those Gang Mazdoors. Final orders were issued by the disciplinary authority by removing them from service. Aggrieved by the order of removal, those affected Gang Mazdoors had filed various original applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 27.3.2002 had set aside the removal and ordered to impose a punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect on those applicants. The next avenue of promotion for Gang Mazdoors is Road Inspectors Grade II, for which post, a pass in SSLC has been prescribed as minimum qualification. At the time of preparation of panel for the post of Road Inspector Grade II, once again certain Gang Mazdoors had produced certificates stating that they had passed SSLC. It was totally in conflict with their earlier stand. They had produced certificates at the time of their initial recruitment, wherein they had stated that they had passed only 5th standard. Thus, the Gang Mazdoors had suppressed the facts about their pass in the SSLC even at the time of their initial recruitment. 4. When these facts were brought to the notice of the Government, by an order dated 24.3.2009, the Government had directed the Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department to initiate disciplinary action against the persons who had suppressed their higher qualification at the time of their initial recruitment as Gang Mazdoors and to impose the same punishment as ordered by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 27.3.2002. It is against this direction, the association has filed the writ petition. 5. It was contended that the duties of Gang Mazdoors comprised of supervising, maintenance of roads, clearing of roadside jungles, filling up of pot holes, for which only a pass in 5th standard was required. Such qualification was purposely fixed so that correct people can be absorbed and that the object can be achieved. The minimum general qualification is not prescribed and the people with higher qualification like SSLC, etc if appointed, they may not be suitable for carrying out the functions entrusted to them. They will be interested in their career advancement. Such qualification was purposely fixed so that correct people can be absorbed and that the object can be achieved. The minimum general qualification is not prescribed and the people with higher qualification like SSLC, etc if appointed, they may not be suitable for carrying out the functions entrusted to them. They will be interested in their career advancement. Therefore, the candidates were selected only if they had studied upto 5th standard and not studied any further higher class. Certain Gang Mazdoors, who had studied in high schools and had even passed SSLC had suppressed their original qualification at the time of joining. But at the time of promotion, they had suddenly came up with higher qualification for getting promotions. Hence the Government had issued instructions. 6. It was stated by the State Government that they had wantonly suppressed their higher qualification. Their action is nothing but a cheating and criminal breach of trust. It had further stated that all the procedures stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules will be followed before passing the final order by the disciplinary authority. There is also further remedy by way of an appeal and review. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr.R.Rengaramanujam produced a list contained as many as 190 persons, who were Gang Mazdoors and the list of 26 persons who got promotion to the post of Road Inspectors by way of additional typed set and contended that they should not be punished merely because they possessed higher qualification. 8. In the second writ petition, pursuant to the order issued by the State Government, they were reverted to the lower post with effect from 31.8.2009. In those cases, it was claimed by them that promotion orders were given to them as per the seniority and they have also joined duty on 03.10.2008. It is their juniors who had passed SSLC made a complaint that some of them had passed SSLC even at the time of selection and had suppressed the fact at the time of selection. When they had actually joined, they were informed that it is enough if they produce SSLC fail certificate. Hence they did not produce SSLC pass certificate. It is due to inadvertence, they had not produced SSLC certificates. When they had actually joined, they were informed that it is enough if they produce SSLC fail certificate. Hence they did not produce SSLC pass certificate. It is due to inadvertence, they had not produced SSLC certificates. Since their association had already challenged the Government directions, without waiting for the outcome of the writ petition in W.P.No.8065 of 2009, the respondents had reverted the petitioners. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, it was stated that the contentions raised by the six petitioners were not valid. They had clearly suppressed their real educational qualification at the time of recruitment. Even by inadvertence if they have not mentioned their SSLC pass, even at the time of opening their service book, it was recorded that they had failed 10th standard. Therefore, hiding of such fact to the Government is also an offence. Hence the respondents prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 10. Mr.R.Rengaramanujam, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Madurai Bench of this court in B.Ramamoorthy Vs. Chief Engineer, Highway and Rural Works, Chennai and others reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 370 , wherein this court held that even though the Highways Department had fixed educational qualification as 5th standard, the said qualification is only a minimum and even persons with higher qualification are entitled to apply for the said post. But, in that case, when a Gang Mazdoor who is having higher qualification was denied posting order, a case came to be filed. Therefore, it may not be the authority for persons who made false declaration at the time of joining. 11. The learned counsel also referred to a decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court made in K.Pandithurai and others Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports, Secretariat, Chennai and others in W.P.(MD)Nos.2161 of 2009 etc batch cases, dated 20.7.2010, wherein a charge memo was quashed by this court holding that when they gave a certificate to prove that they had passed 5th standard, it does not mean that they had suppressed the fact of passing 10th standard and it is not a case of wilfully giving a wrong information and getting an appointment. 12. 12. But, in the present case, the association cannot file a writ petition with an omnibus prayer to prevent the authority in proceeding with the disciplinary action as the Government is empowered to direct its subordinates to take an action in case of any violation of conduct rules by the Government servants. The consequential direction issued by the Chief Engineer also cannot be found fault with. Hence the omnibus prayer made in W.P.No.8065 of 2009 is liable to be rejected. 13. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702 and in paragraph 8, it was observed as follows: “8. There is no doubt that if any candidate furnishes false or incomplete information or withholds or conceals any material information in his application, he will be debarred from securing employment. It is also true that even if such an applicant is already appointed, his services are liable to be terminated for furnishing false information.” 14. This is not a case where employees are not allowed to join only because of their higher qualification or that a charge memo has been wrongly issued. In fact, whether there was any suppression willfully at the time of joining the service is the only question to be considered. Even assuming the petitioners had produced only 10th standard fail certificates at the time of joining, the fact that subsequently after coming to know that the rules have been amended for promotion to the posts of Road Inspector Grade II, the petitioners were suddenly bringing their original qualification will clearly throw suspicion. Hence the respondents are entitled to take action against such of those persons. Therefore, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar's case (cited supra), the petitioners cannot ward off the action by the respondents. The State Government's giving direction to take action would not amount to curtailing the right of the petitioners or any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. 15. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.