JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The writ petitioner claims, the, making, of, a mandamus upon the respondents, for quashing the selection, and, consequent therewith appointment, of, co-respondent No.3, as, Computer Operator, Development Block, Nankhari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. The gravamen of the afore striving, becomes embedded, in the selection committee, proceeding to, on, the parameter of experience, hence award 15 marks to co- respondent No.3. The apposite abstract of the score-sheet making the afore reflections is appended with the instant writ petition, as, Annexure P-11. The validity of awarding of marks qua therewith, by the selection committee, is contended to be fallacious, as co-respondent No.3 did not, in tandem with the maximum, of, 15 marks allocable, to her, under the parameter of experience, render or perform duties hence relevant to the advertised posts, in any Panchayati Raj institution/ Government Office/undertaking/institution/agency. 3. The afore made contention, does acquire merit, as, the performance(s) by the aspirants concerned, of duties in, the, capacity of computer operator, prior to the apposite selection and consequent therewith appointment being made, enjoined imperative performance(s) thereof, in any Panchayati Raj institution/ Government Office/undertaking/institution/agency, (i) and, obviously the experience certificate possessed by corespondent No.3, and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-12, is not issued, in consonance with the afore stated apposite therewith norm(s), encapsulated in norms, embodied in Annexure P-10. The sequel thereof is that the claim made in the writ petition becomes amenable for acceptance, and, the awarding of 15 marks, by the selection committee concerned, of the respondents, under, the norm “experience”, is, annulled. 4. Be that as it may, since it is averred, on affidavit, by co-respondent No.3, that, in the relevant year, in as much as 2008, and, whereat the relevant recruitment hence began, rather thereat (s) with the petitioner rendering work, as, a computer Teacher in Government School, Nankhari, District Shimla, H.P, and, his drawing per mensem salary of Rs.2760/-, thereupon, the awarding of 5 marks, to him, under BPL norm, hence by the selection committee, as unfolded by score sheet, Annexure P-11, becomes also construable to be legally fallible, unless it, is demonstrated by cogent evidence, that despite, drawing(s) of the afore per mensem salary by the petitioner, in the year 2008, whereat, the, recruitment process began, he under, the rules appertaining to the issuance of BPL certificate, did not, qualify to fall within the realm of BPL category. 5. 5. In summa, the allotment of 15 marks to corespondent No.3 under the parameter of experience, is, annulled and set aside, and, with the aforemade observations, vis-a-vis, the allotment of marks to the petitioner, under, the head “BPL norm”, be also reconsidered, and, the respondent concerned is directed to thereafter prepare and redraw, the, Seniority list, appertaining to the selection and consequent therewith appointment, as, made to the advertised post of Computer Operator(s). In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.