JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - This intra-court appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 11.5.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 11473/2019. 2. The matter relates to appointment of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Tilli, Dongari (Kua), Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol. 3. That, in pursuance to advertisement dated 3.10.2016, the appellant and Respondent No. 4 applied for the post. The last date for submission of application with all credentials was 27.10.2016. That, in a provisional select list published on 11.1.2017, the Respondent No. 4 was placed at Sl. No. 1. The Appellant was at Sl. No. 3. 4. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an objection on 19.2.2017 stating therein that along with her application she had filed an experience certificate of having worked in Shishu Shiksha Kendra ¼^^----------------izkfFkZ;k us vkosnu ds lkFk f'k'kq f'k{kk dsUnz esa dk;Z djus dk vuqHko izek.k i= dh Nk;k izfr yxk;k Fkk fdUrq vuqHko ds vad izkIr ugah gq;s gS---------^^ . However, a contradictory statement is made in the Writ petition of furnishing the experience certificate on 26.10.2016. Be that as it may. The District Scrutiny Committee which considered the objection drew a final list on 30.1.2017, wherein the Appellant was placed at Srl. No. 1. 5. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 4, preferred an appeal before, Collector, Shahdol, who by his order dated 18.2.2019 set aside the order of appointment of the Appellant and upheld the status of Respondent No. 1 on a finding that the Appellant did not file the experience certificate. The Appellate Authority arrived at the finding on the basis of record, the extract whereof is reproduced for ready reference: 6. Aggrieved the Appellant preferred a Second Appeal, which was dismissed on 6.6.2019 on the following findings: 7. Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant also met with the same fate. Learned Single Judge after perusing the original record affirmed the concurrent findings by the First and Second Appellate Authority, dismissed the petition vide impugned order on the findings: "5. Perused the original record which has been received from the office of Woman & Child Development Project Beohari, Shahdol. Petitioner has filed an application before the Project Officer for awarding her four marks of experience. This application was filed after publication of provisional list. Petitioner has mentioned in her application that experience certificate was filed along with her original application. Perused the original record which has been received from the office of Woman & Child Development Project Beohari, Shahdol. Petitioner has filed an application before the Project Officer for awarding her four marks of experience. This application was filed after publication of provisional list. Petitioner has mentioned in her application that experience certificate was filed along with her original application. The averment made in this application is contrary to the pleadings which has been made in the writ petition." 8. Though an exception is taken to the findings arrived by the Authorities concerned and by learned Single Judge regarding non filing of experience certificate on the basis of an endorsement dated 26.10.2016 by same Clerk of receiving the said certificate and its alleged admission by the Project Officer on 16.4.2019 and the averment made by the State in paragraph 6 of its return. In paragraph 6 of the return filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 13.8.2019 it was stated that "That, it is submitted that later on the petitioner submitted the experience certificate for working as Didi in Shishu Shiksha Kendra with the clerk posted in the office of Respondent No. 3 on 26.10.2016. However, the then clerk concerned posted at office of Respondent No. 3 was not supposed to take the same as the experience certificate if any ought to have been annexed by the applicant/candidate along with their application form for appointment of Anganwadi Worker. It is further submitted that in the provisional select list the name of petitioner was at serial no. 3 whereas the name of Respondent No. 4 was at serial no. 1." Careful reading reveals that there is no admission by the State. On the contrary doubt is raised on the authority of the clerk of receiving the experience certificate on 26.10.2016. The affidavit supporting the contention is sworn by the same officer who wrote a letter on 16.4.2019 addressed to the Additional Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol who was hearing Second Appeal. The letter spells out that the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee in its decision dated 24.1.2017 had accepted that the document in question was received on 26.10.2016, by the clerk. Thus, apparent it is that the averments in paragraph 6 of the return and the contents of communication dated 16.4.2019 is not on the basis of original record. The letter spells out that the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee in its decision dated 24.1.2017 had accepted that the document in question was received on 26.10.2016, by the clerk. Thus, apparent it is that the averments in paragraph 6 of the return and the contents of communication dated 16.4.2019 is not on the basis of original record. This will further be evident from the recitation in the Affidavit sworn by the said project officer; wherein she states: "1. That, the accompanying reply has been drafted on my instructions and I have read & understood its contents. 2. That, the contents of paras 1 to end of the attached reply are based on information derived from official records which I believed to be true." 9. These depositions do not disclose as to which of the facts are based on record and personal knowledge. Furthermore, the contentions run counter to the findings by the First Appellate Authority who was in seisin with the original record which led him to return a categorical finding in the following terms: 10. When these findings are tested on the anvil of the alleged receiving of documents on 26.10.2016 by the clerk, it leaves no iota of doubt that the "initial" said to be of the clerk receiving the document is not the same as the "signature" of the clerk receiving 10 documents on 24.10.2016, which does not include the experience certificate. There is no reason for the same clerk to have endorsed the receiving of the said document on 26.10.2016. There was also no reason for the Appellant not making mention of this fact of serving a copy on the clerk on 26.10.2016 in her objection before the Redressal Grievance Committee; wherein she categorically stated that the experience certificate was filed along with application. 11. When the impugned order is tested on above analysis, we do not perceive any error as would warrant any indulgence. 12. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.