6.It is clear from the above that the only mistake committed by the respondent was that the teaching experience certificate produced by him was not in the prescribed format as per Annexure IV and that it was not signed by the Correspondent of the college. But nevertheless, it was signed by the Principal of the College. Therefore, the appellant could have at least asked the respondent to produce the certificate in the prescribed format. The lack of qualification of a person for appointment to a post stands on a different footing than the failure to produce the certificate in a prescribed format. The fact that the respondent produced a teaching experience certificate is not in dispute. The fact that it was signed by the Principal of the College in which he was employed is not in dispute. Therefore, the appellant could have returned the experience certificate and called upon the respondent to produce the certificate in the prescribed format with the signature of the correspondent. Instead the appellant actually kept quiet and chose to pass the impugned order only after a direction was issued by this Court. The experience certificate issued by the Principal though not signed by the correspondent of the college, was actually countersigned by the Director of Technical Education. Therefore, the fact that it was not in the prescribed format and that it was not signed by the correspondent cannot have any bearing upon the qualification of the respondent. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
