Judgment Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. The petitioner has requested to invoke under this writ petition, extra-ordinary powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against termination order dated 1-11-2011 issued by Respondent No.2 under the foregoing circumstances. 2. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, namely, Mahadeo Koli, which has been duly verified and validated by the competent authority in the year 2008. The petitioner has passed secondary school certificate examination. He has secured 77 per cent marks in I.T.I. electrician trade test. He has also undergone apprenticeship wherein he has secured 62 per cent marks. In addition to above, petitioner has also worked and gained experience as electrician with M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, Latur, during the period 1-7-2007 to 30-6-2008. 3. Respondent No.1-company had issued an advertisement, inviting applications for appointment on 413 posts of Junior Operator, from which about 47 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioner, being in need and desirous of securing a gainful employment for providing livelihood to him and his family, had applied to Respondents for appointment as Junior operator. Along with the application, petitioner furnished requisite documents, inter alia, educational certificates, mark-sheets and experience certificate issued by M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, Latur, indicating a year's experience as an electrician. The application along with aforesaid documents had been duly submitted to the Respondents. 4. The petitioner, subsequently realized an error that had crept in while issuing experience certificate by said M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, Latur, that the date of issuance of said certificate had been inadvertently referred to as 1-7-2007, whereas it ought to have been 1-7-2008. Thereupon, he had approached said M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors for issuance of a proper certificate, however, said M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, had carried out necessary correction on the very same certificate which had been issued to the petitioner, referring to the date of issuance as 1-7-2008. On receipt of such corrected certificate, a copy of the same had been duly submitted to Respondents by petitioner. 5. Subsequently, Petitioner had appeared at the written test conducted on 24-1-2010 and cleared the same. Petitioner had, accordingly, been called for oral interview held on 11-5-2010. The petitioner had emerged successful in the written test and interview and as such, had been selected for appointment to the post of Junior Operator. 5. Subsequently, Petitioner had appeared at the written test conducted on 24-1-2010 and cleared the same. Petitioner had, accordingly, been called for oral interview held on 11-5-2010. The petitioner had emerged successful in the written test and interview and as such, had been selected for appointment to the post of Junior Operator. His name appeared at serial No.390 in the list of successful candidates declared by the Respondents. 6. However, it appears that a doubt had been raised by the respondents about veracity and correctness of the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner and a letter came to be issued to him on 21-8-2010 by Respondent No.1, claiming that he had submitted apprenticeship certificate from one Dastgir Electricals and as such, his application is deficient in respect of his experience and purporting to communicate that no further action in respect of his appointment is possible. 7. Dazed by the communication, the petitioner had tendered his written explanation pointing out that he had submitted an experience certificate of M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, and that on scrutiny of the same, he had been allowed to appear at the written test, as well as for oral interview and also that verification of the documents had been carried out by expert officers of the Respondents. Under the circumstances, petitioner had requested for his appointment to the post of Junior Operator. Petitioner had again tendered a request letter on 26-10-2010. 8. On 28-12-2010, Respondent No.1 had communicated to petitioner to attend Circle office of Respondent No.2, before 15-1-2011 along with his original documents. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted his original documents to the circle office of the Respondents at Latur. 9. By letter dated 20-6-2011, petitioner had been directed to contact Circle office of Respondents at Osmanabad before 27-6-2011 and had also been directed to satisfy the concerned office about him being possessing the qualifications for appointment as Junior Operator. Accordingly, the petitioner had been to the Circle Office of the Respondents and has also satisfied the concerned officers about him being fulfilling all the conditions for appointment and the qualifications required therefor. 10. Thereupon, the petitioner had been issued order dated 24-6-2011 appointing him as Junior Operator, from the category of the Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner's appointment had been as Junior Operator at Sub Center Ambi, under Sub Division Paranda, Division Osmanabad which he joined with effect from 2-7-2011. 10. Thereupon, the petitioner had been issued order dated 24-6-2011 appointing him as Junior Operator, from the category of the Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner's appointment had been as Junior Operator at Sub Center Ambi, under Sub Division Paranda, Division Osmanabad which he joined with effect from 2-7-2011. Petitioner had been working as such since then till 1-11-2011. 11. On 1-11-2011, petitioner had been shocked to receive a letter of even date, terminating his services as Junior Operator with immediate effect with one month's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner is not even called upon to explain about the so called discrepancy occurred in the doubted document. 12. Petitioner had immediately submitted a representation to Respondent No.1 and requested to consider the same as an appeal and to revoke and set aside the communication dated 1-11-2011 and to issue an order to him to work as Junior Operator. Petitioner appears to have approached again to M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, Latur and said M/s Aditya Electricals and Contractors, has issued a certificate confirming that the petitioner had experience of one year as stated in the earlier certificate and that there had been an error in respect of date of issue of the certificate at the first instance, however, the same has been rectified. 13. Upon notice of the writ petition to the Respondents, they have submitted their response, opposing the claim in the writ petition. It has been claimed that the error in the date of issuance of experience certificate by M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors had gone unattended on earlier occasion, however, subsequently on noticing the same, the impugned order has been issued. The Respondents do not dispute the qualifications of the petitioner, nor do they dispute experience gained by the Petitioner at M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors, Latur. It is contended that the selection of the petitioner had been on provisional basis, subject to fulfillment of the conditions notified. It has been further contended that the petitioner, subsequently having been found not meeting with the prerequisite of experience, the respondents were within their powers with respect to action taken under the impugned order. 14. It is contended that the selection of the petitioner had been on provisional basis, subject to fulfillment of the conditions notified. It has been further contended that the petitioner, subsequently having been found not meeting with the prerequisite of experience, the respondents were within their powers with respect to action taken under the impugned order. 14. From the record, which has been submitted by the petitioner and the respondents, it emerges that initially under letter dated 21-8-2010, the documents which had been submitted by the petitioner, had been minutely verified and in that, a query with regard to the experience gained by the petitioner on the basis of apprentice certificate issued by M/s Dastgir Electricals, had been raised. In respect of the same, it had been specifically explained by the petitioner that the certificate issued by M/s Dastgir Electrical is with regard to apprenticeship and further that he had submitted certificate of experience of one year from M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors and as such, the doubt raised with regard to experience is not justified. Once again the petitioner had written to the respondents for issuance of a appointment order. 15. Subsequently, under letter dated 28-12-2010, the respondents had directed the petitioner to attend their office at Latur, before 15-1-2011 with all the original documents. The petitioner had, accordingly, submitted the same to Respondents' Latur office on 6-1-2011, including the rectified certificate of experience issued by M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors and the documents were scrutinized. By letter dated 20-6-2011, the petitioner had once again been directed to attend the Respondents' office at Osmanabad, on or before 27-6-2011 with all testimonials as referred to therein, including the experience certificate. The petitioner had, accordingly, produced all the requisite documents as had been asked for, before the stipulated date. The documents had been duly scrutinized by the concerned authorities twice. 16. Thereupon, the Petitioner had been issued, appointment order dated 24-6-2011 as a candidate from the Scheduled Tribe reserved category. The appointment order refers to the submission of the documents as earlier. The petitioner, accordingly, joined his services as a Junior Operator with Respondents from 2-7-2011 at Sub Center Ambi, Sub Division Paranda, District Osmanabad. 17. The petitioner had, thereafter, been visited with the impugned letter dated 1-11-2011, terminating his services purportedly for alleged scoring in the date of issuance of experience certificate. The petitioner, accordingly, joined his services as a Junior Operator with Respondents from 2-7-2011 at Sub Center Ambi, Sub Division Paranda, District Osmanabad. 17. The petitioner had, thereafter, been visited with the impugned letter dated 1-11-2011, terminating his services purportedly for alleged scoring in the date of issuance of experience certificate. The impugned letter apparently reflects, it has not been taken into account that after submission of the application for selection, the petitioner had taken immediate corrective action, by submitting a rectified certificate of experience issued by M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors and thereafter he had been examined, tested and selected. Even after selection, the documents were submitted by the petitioner, including earlier and rectified experience certificate, at least on two occasions, which the authorities concerned had found to be in order. The authorities had not raised any doubt about authenticity of the experience certificate issued by M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors. The petitioner has also, along with the petition, filed the certificate issued by said M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors, pointing out that the error had crept in the date of issuance of experience certificate at the first instance due to oversight and inadvertence. The respondents do not have any dispute about said certificate having been issued by said M/s Aditya Electricals & Contractors. 18. The position thus points out that the error in the date of issuance of experience certificate had been a human error and upon realization of the same, required corrective action had been taken by the concerned. As such, the action taken against the petitioner under the impugned order visits him with devastating consequence which, in our estimate is too disproportionate and is uncalled for. Having tested and verified the documents submitted by the petitioner at least twice with the original testimonials and having found the same to be in order, after appointment, the impugned order would not be consistent with the same. 19. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 1-11-2011 cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, with continuity of service and all consequential, ancillary and incidental benefits, without backwages for the period during which he was not in employment. The necessary orders be issued by concerned respondents within a period of three weeks from today. 20. Petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms.