JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent against the Order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 22702 of 2013 on the file of this Court.) This appeal is heard through video-conferencing. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P.No. 22702 of 2013 filed by her. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner completed B.Sc.,(Zoology) from Madurai Kamaraj University during the year 1985 and registered it with the concerned District Employment Exchange. She had also completed B.Ed., from Madras University during 1991 and Diploma in Computer Education during the year 1995, which were also registered with the concerned District Employment Exchange. 4. During the year 2007, the Teachers Recruitment Board issued a notification calling for application from suitable candidates for filling up the post of Graduate Assistants through Employment Exchange. The name of the appellant/writ petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, based on which, an interview call letter dated 14.06.2007 was issued, calling upon her to attend an interview on 27.06.2007, inter-alia, to verify the educational testimonials. After complying with all the procedures leading to the recruitment, the appellant/writ petitioner was provisionally selected and an order of appointment, dated 05.09.2007, was issued, appointing the appellant/writ petitioner to the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). This was followed by a communication dated 27.09.2007 issued by the second respondent posting the appellant/writ petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics) in Government High School, Alavayal, Pudukottai District. 5. The appellant/writ petitioner continued in her employment as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) atleast for about six years. During the course of such employment, she was transferred to various Schools. While the appellant/writ petitioner was working as Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) in Government High School, Nerkuppai, Sivagangai District, the Headmaster of the School allotted Mathematics subject to her. At this stage, it came to light that the appellant/writ petitioner is a Graduate in Science (Zoology) and she has not acquired any qualification in Mathematics subject. It was also stated by the appellant/writ petitioner that she had Notes of Lessons only in Science Subject in the School and therefore, she is not in a position to teach Mathematics subject to the students. It was also stated by the appellant/writ petitioner that she had Notes of Lessons only in Science Subject in the School and therefore, she is not in a position to teach Mathematics subject to the students. Hence, in that regard, the Headmaster of the School at Nerkuppai, had sought clarification from the third respondent/Chief Educational Officer, Sivaganga. In this context, the third respondent sought a clarification by way of letter in Rc.5156/A2/12 dated Nil.09.2012 from the second respondent herein/The Joint Director (Personnel) of School Education, Chennai. 6. On the basis of the letter sent by the third respondent, the second respondent, by letter dated 30.01.2013 addressed to the first respondent, recommended that the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner may be changed from Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) to Graduate Assistant (Zoology). In response, the first respondent, by communication dated 28.02.2013, has stated that when once the candidate was sponsored for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics), her appointment could not be converted into one of Graduate Assistant (Zoology). Therefore, the first respondent instructed the second respondent to cancel the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner forthwith. 7. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 05.06.2013 was issued by the second respondent calling upon the appellant/writ petitioner to show cause as to why her appointment as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) be not cancelled. An explanation dated 11.06.2013 was given by the appellant/writ petitioner stating that, even at the time of Certificate verification, she had clearly stated about her educational qualification. Since the certificate verifying officials required that the subject contained in the call letter alone has to be filled in the ICR form, she mentioned Mathematics as the post to which she had applied. However, she has clearly mentioned her educational qualification as Zoology and therefore, no fault could be attributed against her. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant/writ petitioner, the second respondent passed an order dated 30.07.2013 cancelling the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). 8. Challenging the order dated 30.07.2013 of the second respondent, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in W.P.No. 22702 of 2013 before the learned single Judge. 9. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit, justifying the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the second respondent cancelling the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). 10. 9. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit, justifying the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the second respondent cancelling the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). 10. On a consideration of the rival submissions, the learned single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition on 10.07.2017. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- “13. The explanation for mentioning the qualification in the ICR form and also during certificate verification offered by the petitioner are not acceptable and in my view, the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner has been passed only after considering her explanation and after following the due process of law and therefore, the petitioner cannot question the impugned order by way of filing writ petition. 14. Admittedly, the impugned order is a well considered order. Further, as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, particularly paragraph 10, if the certificates produced by the petitioner are found to be bogus in future, the appointment shall be cancelled without any notice. When such being the terms and conditions of the appointment order, having found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Graduate Assistant in Mathematics at the relevant point of time, the second respondent has rightly passed the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order impugned. 15. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that by an order dated 23.03.2015, this Court directed the Government Advocate to get proper instructions from the third respondent and to find out as to whether as on today the petitioner has reached the zone of consideration to be appointed as Graduate Assistant in Science and the vacancy position thereof. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since the employment registration of the petitioner was on 04.12.1991, she had not reached the selection zone of Zoology subjects even now. The said position is not disputed by the petitioner. 17. It is pertinent to note that considering the qualification, age and the nature of the post held by the petitioner and also the fact that if any comments made against the petitioner in this writ petition, it will spoil her carrier in future. The said position is not disputed by the petitioner. 17. It is pertinent to note that considering the qualification, age and the nature of the post held by the petitioner and also the fact that if any comments made against the petitioner in this writ petition, it will spoil her carrier in future. Therefore, this Court do not want to say anything further on her for wrong quoting of the qualification and got the selection. 18. Insofar the respondent authorities are concerned, it cannot be said that they have no responsibility. As stated supra, it is their prime duty of the officials of the respondents to verify the certificates thoroughly and only if they found that the particular candidate was suitable with requisite qualification for the post, then only they can appoint him/her in the post. In this case, admittedly, officials of the respondents were in lethargic in selecting and appointing the petitioner. Therefore, it will appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to fix responsibility of the concerned officials, who appointed the petitioner in the post of Graduate Assistant in Mathematics and initiate action against them. It will also be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to initiate action against the concerned official to recover the salary paid to the petitioner so far. 19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondent authorities are directed to fix responsibility on the officials concerned who appointed the petitioner as Graduate Assistant in Mathematics and initiate action against them and also recover the salary so far paid to the petitioner from officials concerned after fixing the responsibility. The said exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and a report as to the action taken shall be filed before this Court without fail. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 11. Assailing the above order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner vehemently contended that the appellant/writ petitioner had rendered unblemished service for about seven years as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) and it was not taken note of by the respondents while cancelling the order of appointment. It is further contended that even at the time of appointment, the appellant/writ petitioner had clearly indicated that she had passed B.Sc., (Zoology) and produced the educational testimonials in support thereof. It is further contended that even at the time of appointment, the appellant/writ petitioner had clearly indicated that she had passed B.Sc., (Zoology) and produced the educational testimonials in support thereof. However, the officials of the first respondent insisted the appellant/writ petitioner only to write in the ICR Form the post to which her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, namely Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). Therefore, it is the duty of the officials to verify the testimonials submitted and the educational qualification possessed by the appellant/writ petitioner before issuing the order of appointment. In the present case, the appellant/writ petitioner had voluntarily disclosed her educational qualification before taking up the order of appointment and therefore, no motive can be attributed against her. However, the learned Single Judge had observed that when the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification, she ought not to have taken up the appointment. On the other hand, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to take steps to fix the responsibility on the officials concerned, who appointed the appellant/writ petitioner and initiate action against them and also recover the salary so far paid to the appellant/writ petitioner from the officials concerned. Such a direction issued by the learned Single Judge itself is indicative of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be blamed for her appointment as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contended that the appellant/writ petitioner had rendered unblemished service for about seven years and therefore, on the principles of equity, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition instead of dismissing it. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner further contended that the appellant/writ petitioner joined the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) after taking training under the SSA Scheme on 08.10.2007. The appellant/writ petitioner had also taken classes for the students studying in Standard VI, VII and VIII in English, Tamil, Mathematics and Social Science. During the academic year 2009, the appellant/writ petitioner has also taken classes to students studying VII, VIII and X Standard. It is her contention that the post of Graduate Assistant is filled up to enable the incumbent teacher to take classes in all subjects and there is no subject roster in the post of Graduate Assistant. 13. During the academic year 2009, the appellant/writ petitioner has also taken classes to students studying VII, VIII and X Standard. It is her contention that the post of Graduate Assistant is filled up to enable the incumbent teacher to take classes in all subjects and there is no subject roster in the post of Graduate Assistant. 13. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner pointed out that in the year 2004, a Circular dated 26.10.2004 relating to subject roster was issued by the Director of School Education and it was subjected to challenge before this Court. This Court, by order dated 20.09.2007, quashed the Circular issued by the Director of School Education with an observation that the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 does not contemplate any subject roster to be followed. Therefore, by citing the subject roster, the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner ought not to have been cancelled. 14. Above all, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contended that prior to the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics), she was working as Junior Assistant in Taluk Office, Thirupathur, Sivaganga District for a consolidated salary from 08.07.2003. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, while she was working as Junior Assistant, the appellant/writ petitioner was subjected to a screening test and her service has also been regularised. However, on her appointment as Graduate Assistant, the appellant/writ petitioner had resigned the post of Junior Assistant. While so, the present order dated 30.07.2013, cancelling the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner, had resulted in loss of her livelihood. The respondents as well as the learned Single Judge, did not consider the above aspects and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner prayed for allowing this Writ Appeal. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), reported in 2010 (2) SCC 169 , wherein, it has been held that terminating the service of the appellant/writ petitioner, who had rendered 21 years of service as Peon, without any enquiry, is illegal and violative of Article 311 (2) of The Constitution of India. 16. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), reported in 2010 (2) SCC 169 , wherein, it has been held that terminating the service of the appellant/writ petitioner, who had rendered 21 years of service as Peon, without any enquiry, is illegal and violative of Article 311 (2) of The Constitution of India. 16. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that the appellant/writ petitioner is fully aware that she did not possess the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). While so, she ought not to have taken up the appointment without anticipating the repercussions involved. The selection of the appellant/writ petitioner was based on Employment Exchange seniority and the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange at the ratio of 1:5, for the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). For the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) already 33 candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange based on seniority, who do not possess the requisite qualification. Such 33 candidates were identified during the Certificate verification besides those candidates themselves have admitted that they did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post called for. However, the appellant/writ petitioner did not do so and had taken up the appointment to the post of “Graduate Assistant (Mathematics)”, even though she possess only qualification in “Zoology” subject. The mistake in appointing the appellant/writ petitioner is largely attributable on the part of the Employment Exchange, which had sponsored the candidates without the requisite qualification for the post called for and the appellant/writ petitioner is also equally at fault in taking up her appointment to a post, to which she did not possess the requisite qualification. 17. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the appellant/writ petitioner claimed that she had mentioned the post applied for as Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) only due to the insistence of the authorities at the time of certificate verification. However, at the time when she received the order of appointment, appointing her to the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics), she ought to have disclosed the qualification possessed by her. Thus, it is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that when the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post to which she was appointed, she ought not to have taken up the post or continued in the post. Thus, it is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that when the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post to which she was appointed, she ought not to have taken up the post or continued in the post. In those circumstances, the Additional Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 18. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for holding the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). The appellant/writ petitioner is admittedly a Graduate in Science. However, when an interview call letter was received for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics), she participated in the interview and the certificate verification. It is true that the appellant/writ petitioner had written in the ICR form that she is a Graduate in B.Sc., (Zoology). At the same time, we feel that it is not enough for the appellant/writ petitioner to feign ignorance. It is contended that 33 candidates, who were similarly sponsored by the Employment Exchange, like the appellant/writ petitioner, have voluntarily disclosed that they did not possess the requisite qualification for holding the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). The appellant/writ petitioner also, in our opinion, ought to have disclosed that she did not possess the requisite qualification and ought not to have taken up the appointment. It is not the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that she was under the impression that she will be given appointment only to the post of Graduate Assistant (Zoology), but what was given to her is the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics). The appellant/writ petitioner, knowing fully well about the consequences that may befall on her, had taken up the appointment to a post to which she did not possess the prescribed qualification. The appellant/writ petitioner, in our opinion, ought to have refused to take up the appointment when she did not possess the requisite qualification for holding the post. 19. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant/writ petitioner continued the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) for about six years. While so, during allotment of roster by the Headmaster of the School, it came to light that the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post, which she is holding. 19. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant/writ petitioner continued the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) for about six years. While so, during allotment of roster by the Headmaster of the School, it came to light that the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post, which she is holding. This had prompted the Headmaster of the School to seek a clarification from the second respondent, who in turn, recommended for conversion of the post which was held by the appellant/writ petitioner into one of Graduate Assistant (Zoology). The first respondent, by a communication dated 28.02.2013, refused to convert the post on the ground that when once a candidate was sponsored for “Mathematics” subject, she could not be considered for appointment as Graduate Assistant in “Science”, after six years of her appointment. Therefore, the first respondent instructed the second respondent to cancel the appointment given to the appellant/writ petitioner. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 05.06.2013 was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner, for which she had submitted her explanation on 11.06.2013. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the order dated 30.07.2013 cancelling the order of appointment issued to the appellant/writ petitioner. Thus, before passing the order dated 30.07.2013, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner for which she had also submitted her explanation. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 169 , to contend that before passing the order of termination, the respondent did not conduct an enquiry. In that case before the Supreme Court, the appellant therein was appointed as a Peon on 24.07.1980. After eight years of his service, on 22.08.1989, the appellant therein was charge sheeted in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 148, 342/149, 326/149 and 506 of IPC. In the year 1994, the appellant/writ petitioner was called upon to submit an attestation form by his employer by furnishing certain personal details. In column No.12 of the form, he was called upon to state as to whether he was arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention by any Court for which he answered “No”. However, on 14.07.1995, the Deputy Inspector General (Special Cell) Bhopal, submitted a report stating that the appellant therein involved himself in the criminal case. In column No.12 of the form, he was called upon to state as to whether he was arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention by any Court for which he answered “No”. However, on 14.07.1995, the Deputy Inspector General (Special Cell) Bhopal, submitted a report stating that the appellant therein involved himself in the criminal case. Based on such report, no action was taken thereof by the employer and the appellant therein was allowed to continue in the post till 07.03.2002. While so, on 07.03.2002, without conducting any enquiry, an Office order was issued terminating the appellant therein from service. Further, after such termination, the appellant therein was acquitted from the criminal case on 09.09.2004. It is in those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that terminating the appellant/writ petitioner without conducting any enquiry, is bad. In the present case, the question of conducting an enquiry will not arise, inasmuch as the appellant/writ petitioner herself admitted that she did not possess the requisite qualification for holding the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) even at the time of conducting the interview. All that the appellant/writ petitioner stated in her explanation is that she was called upon to fill up the ICR Form by indicating the post for which the call letter was issued to her. Thus, even at the time of selection process, the appellant/writ petitioner knew fully well about her demeanour in continuing in the selection process for the sake of securing employment. In such view of the matter, after six years of her service, finding that the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner itself is irregular, the order dated 30.06.2013 came to be passed. The learned Single Judge, while upholding the order dated 30.06.2013, rightly issued direction to take appropriate action as is necessary against the erring officials for having appointed the appellant/writ petitioner in a post to which she is not qualified. We find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 21. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed. No costs. Connected CMP No. 16707 of 2019 is closed.