Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has participated in the recruitment exercise on contractual basis advertised by District Health Society, Bokaro (Annexure-2) in Adv. no. 1/2014-15 for the post of District Programme Coordinator. Only one post was advertised belonging to Unreserved Category and apart from the essential qualification of MBA/ PG Diploma in Management/Health Administration from a recognized Institute/University, one year of work experience at least was required. Preferential qualification would be given if he has worked in the field of development/health at district or State level. The post required basic knowledge of computer also. Petitioner faced the interview and reportedly got 88 marks as per the information obtained from the Respondent district authority by the petitioner ( Annexure-5). He submits that he has scored highest mark in interview amongst 5 candidates called for and is also having the total highest marks of 88. The only ground to deny him appointment is a report (Annexure-A) dated 20th February, 2015 of the Executive Magistrate, Chas from Asharfi Hospital, Dhanbad in respect of certificate of experience submitted by him . 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the report itself shows that he was under engagement in the said Hospital for the period 2011-2015 and had worked on the post of Business Development Executive with a salary of Rs. 8,000/However on the basis of the statement taken from some of the employees of the said Hospital and on an inference that petitioner has not worked, the experience certificate has been declared to be false. Petitioner could have been given an opportunity to produce material in support of experience of working in the said Hospital in the field of T.B. H.I.B, Aids etc. and other various health programme organized by it. Therefore, petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent for consideration of his case for appointment as District Programme Coordinator having obtained the highest marks in the said exam and fulfilling other eligibility conditions/qualifications. 4. Counsel for the State submits that the experience certificate of the petitioner was found wrong upon an inquiry by the Executive Magistrate. It was found that he was working as a Business Development Executive and the Hospital failed to show any proof of discharge of work of the nature required for advertised post of District Programme Coordinator . As such, the petitioner's claim has not been accepted. 5. It was found that he was working as a Business Development Executive and the Hospital failed to show any proof of discharge of work of the nature required for advertised post of District Programme Coordinator . As such, the petitioner's claim has not been accepted. 5. Taking into account the relevant facts pleaded, the submission of the parties and the report which form the basis of non selection of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner had worked in the said Hospital from 2011-14 as a Business Development Executive. The advertisement in question did not specify that the post for which experience is being sought for should be specifically designated as a District Progamme Coordinator in any such Hospital or private Institution. What was required to be ascertained in respect of any such experience certificate was proof of discharge of nature of work required to be undertaken on the post of District Programme Coordinator by the selected person in any Institution or Hospital from where experience certificate has been obtained. If the designation of the post which the petitioner worked in the said Hospital was different but he was under engagement for over a period of 3 years respondents should have given opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the experience requirement under the advertisement in question by producing all such cogent materials and proof that he had really worked in the fields which are also required to be performed in the capacity as a District Programme Coordinator under the revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme. Petitioner should therefore be given an opportunity on his appearance along with a copy of this order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent would take a decision in relation to the appointment of the petitioner based upon such consideration within the same time. 6. No observations made hereinabove should be treated as comments on the merits of the case so far as experience is concerned. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.