JUDGMENT : VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. Counsel for the respondents fairly does not oppose the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal No. 83 of 2019. The delay condonation application, being IA No. 1056 of 2019 is, accordingly, allowed. The delay is condoned. 2. The Special Appeal No. 83 of 2019, is directed against the order dated 21.08.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1610 of 2016, Rakesh Singh Rawat and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, whereby the said writ petition preferred by the respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed. 3. The Special Appeal No. 112 of 2019 has been preferred against the order dated 08.05.2018, by which the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed by placing reliance upon the order passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1610 of 2016, dated 21.08.2017. 4. The respondents/writ petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that they were not awarded Quality Points for the teaching experience gained by them, and for which they had produced the experience certificate, as per Appendix ‘D’ of Uttarakhand School Education Regulations, 2009. There case was that they participated in response to the advertisement dated 11.10.2015, issued by the appellants, whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for filling up of post of Assistant Teachers (LT Grade), in various subjects. Whereas, the respondent in Special Appeal No. 83 of 2019 had offered his candidature for the post in English, respondent in Special Appeal No. 112 of 2019 had offered his candidature for a post in Sociology. They had also enclosed their respective teaching experience certificates in relation to their experience in the same Institution. However, these experience certificates were not considered by the appellants, on the ground that they had claimed to have been made payments in cash towards their emoluments, and the said payments had not been made through cheque in the account of the respondents. 5. The Learned Single Judge examined the English translation of the experience certificate in terms of Appendix ‘D’ of the Regulations, and came to the conclusion that the said format does not require that the salary/emoluments should have been paid only through cheque or in the account of the teacher in whose favour the certificate was issued. 6. The submission of Mr. 6. The submission of Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants, is that this finding of the learned Single Judge is not correct. 7. Appendix ‘D’, as extracted in the impugned order, reads as follows: “Certified that Sri/Smt./Km.........Son/Doughter of Sri...................has served/is serving in the Institution................on the post of...........from.........to........During this period, his salary was paid from Cashbook of the institution bearing no.................through Bank. His Account No. is/was..........................” 8. Mr. Pande submits that the purpose of requiring the production of the experience certificate - which should also certify that payment has been made through bank, is to ensure that fake experience certificates are not produced, as contemporaneous payment through bank, at regular intervals lends credibility to the experience certificate. 9. We have perused the English translation of Appendix ‘D’ aforesaid. 10. In our view, the learned Single Judge appears to have erred by getting swayed by the words “cashbook of the Institution”, and on that basis assumed that even cash payments towards emoluments to the teachers could be reflected in the experience certificate. The latter words includes “through bank”, and the words “His account No. is/was..............” show that the payment of emoluments to the teacher, as certified in the experience certificate should be those which were paid through cheque, or through other means into the bank account of the teacher, who is to be issued the experience certificate. There is a good reason, as pointed out by Mr. Pande, for the experience certificate requiring reflection of payment made through cheque, or into the bank account of the teacher concerned, as that lends credibility to the claim of experience gained by the teacher. Such payments would be contemporaneous, i.e., during the period when the teacher gained experience by serving the institution, and it would be month by month for the months that the teacher claims to have served the institution and gained experience. 11. To that extent, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in concluding that the experience certificate would also be founded upon the payment of salary/emoluments in cash to the teacher, to whom the experience certificate is issued. 12. At the same time, we find that in the facts of the present case, there was good reason to accept the experience certificate of the respondents. 12. At the same time, we find that in the facts of the present case, there was good reason to accept the experience certificate of the respondents. The Institution which issued the experience certificate was also before the Court, and accepted the fact that the respondents had rendered service in the said Institution. Moreover, the experience certificate had not only been issued by the Manager/Principal of the College, but the same had also been certified by the Block Education Officer and counter-signed by the Chief Education Officer, Bageshwar. 13. In these circumstances, the appellants could not have disregarded the experience certificate. There is no reason given by the appellants - as to why the experience certificate produced by the respondents were not only verified by the Block Education Officer, but also counter-signed by the Chief Education Officer, Bageshwar. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, while making it clear that the position in law, as found by the learned Single Judge is not correct, and the correct interpretation is as set out hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere with the relief granted to the respondents. 15. Both the appeals stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.