JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. 2. Through an advertisement No. 05010115, issued by the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') applications were invited for selection for appointment on the post of Lab Technician. The petitioner had applied online. Subsequently, he was invited for counselling with necessary documents. It is the petitioner's case that in the said counselling he had been granted 68.2 marks. Based on the outcome of the counselling process, a list of selected candidates for the purpose of interview was published on 29.05.2020 by the Commission in which the petitioner's roll number did not figure. The Commission, subsequently, issued notice on 05.08.2020 revising the interview programme indicating roll numbers of such candidates who were invited for interview on respective dates and time mentioned therein. In the said notice also, the petitioner's roll number did not figure. The petitioner claims to have represented the Commission claiming inclusion of his roll number in the list of candidates invited for interview. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had the experience of working as Lab Technician in Primary Health Centre, Islampur, Nalanda from 04.10.2006 to 13.06.2019 for which an experience certificate was issued by the Civil Surgeon and accordingly he was entitled to be given due weightage for the said experience for the purpose of selection in question. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission stating therein that on the basis of educational qualification the petitioner was found to have obtained 26.42 marks which is less than the qualifying marks of 34 and accordingly the petitioner had not been called for interview. In respect of the petitioner's claim relating to experience as Lab Technician it has been stated in the counter affidavit that as per instructions of the Health Department, Government of Bihar, an experience certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon at district level only was acceptable. As the experience certificate, which the petitioner had submitted, was issued by the In-charge Medical Officer, no marks were awarded to him against the experience, according to the respondents. It has further been stated that the petitioner had not uploaded the experience certificate online which is evident from the loading page, which reads an error of 'failed to load PDF document'. It has further been stated that the petitioner had not uploaded the experience certificate online which is evident from the loading page, which reads an error of 'failed to load PDF document'. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that it was clearly stipulated in Commission's Memo No. 1368 dated 04.06.2019 and 1430 dated 19.06.2019 that experience certificate must be uploaded within the prescribed time. 5. The statement made in the counter affidavit that the PDF document was not uploaded has been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the experience certificate was issued by the Civil Surgeon and it is incorrect to say that the same was issued by the In-charge Medical Officer, which is evident from Annexure-14 of the writ application. 6. Be that as it may, it is evident from Annexure-R/1 that the computer generated result demonstrated failure on the part of the petitioner to upload PDF document which was a mandatory requirement to claim benefit of experience. The petitioner was required to upload his experience certificate, which he failed to do. 7. In such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present matter. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.