Judgment : A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. - 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19.12.2012, which in turn has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, challenging the penalty of dismissal/removal imposed by the department. The first argument canvassed before us is that the learned Single Judge committed manifest error in proceeding on the finding that the petitioner had obtained public employment on the basis of false certificate. This finding has been recorded inspite of the clear stand taken by the appellant before the disciplinary authority that the appellant had never submitted any qualification certificate to secure employment. The argument completely overlooks the finding of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority to the effect that the appellant has failed to substantiate the defense that he was not responsible for filing the qualification certificate, which was the basis to initiate action against him. His specific defense that the certificate must have been placed on record by his brother due to animosity between them has been considered by the authorities and rejected. That being finding of fact, is not only binding on the appellant but also this Court. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and record a different finding merely because another view on the basis of the same evidence may be possible. That is not the scope of judicial review. The argument of the appellant that the seniority list does not refer to the qualification of the petitioner does not take the matter any further. The non-mention of educational qualification in the seniority list cannot be the basis to absolve the appellant much less to ignore the finding of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority. Counsel for the appellant would now contend that the Court may also advert to his argument that when the appellant secured employment, at the relevant time, the rules of 1966 were in force, which did not require minimum qualification of 8th pass, which however, were introduced only in the year 1997. This argument completely overlooks that the condition stated in Annexure R-1, at page 89, clearly states that the qualification of the candidate for being employed as peon must be middle i.e. 8th pass. This argument completely overlooks that the condition stated in Annexure R-1, at page 89, clearly states that the qualification of the candidate for being employed as peon must be middle i.e. 8th pass. The fact remains that the appellant has failed to substantiate his plea that he had never submitted the qualification certificate, which was the basis to proceed against him departmentally. That being the charge and having been established in the departmental proceedings, no interference is warranted. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal is dismissed.