JUDGMENT : 1. In this instant appeal the Judgement of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated the 9thday of September, 2021 passed in the writ petition being WPA 4138 of 2021 is under challenge. The challenge in the writ petition has been thrown by the present respondent/writ petitioner to the decision of not awarding two marks for post doctoral experience to him while assessing his marks for preparation of the provisional merit list published by the West Bengal College Service Commission for the post of Assistant Professor in Physics under the unreserved category. 2. The facts of the case are that The West Bengal College Service Commission (for short the Commission) published an advertisement being 1 of 2018 inviting applications for recruitment for the posts of 46 Assistant Professors in the unreserved category in different Government aided colleges. The respondent/writ petitioner applied for being recruited as an Assistant Professor in Physics. The respondent/petitioner is a post graduate and has qualified the NET examination. The respondent has a post doctoral degree from the University of Duisberg-Essen, Germany and also has post doctoral research experience of two years from the University of Porto (Portugal) for the period extending from 1.9.2016 to 31.12.2018. 3. After the publication of the merit list by the Commission on the 2nd day of November 2019 the respondent writ petitioner found himself to be placed at serial No. 70. Thereafter the petitioner applied for his score sheet to know the score pattern under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner after obtaining the reply came to know that 20 marks has been allotted for performance in interview and the petitioner from his score sheet came to learn that he has not been awarded any mark on account of experience. As such the respondent/ writ petitioner has preferred the writ petition. 4. A report dated 10.08.2021 has been filed on behalf of the Chairperson of the Commission mentioning that the respondent writ petitioner has not submitted his post doctoral research experience certificate on the date of interview, that is on 02.04.2019.On the contrary, hehas furnished the said certificate by post on 02.02.2021, which has been received by the office of the Commission on 04.02.2021. 5. 5. It is the contention of the Commission that as the provisional merit panel was published on 01.11.2019 and the post doctoral research experience certificate been submitted on 04.02.2021 so the claim of the respondent/ writ petitioner for two marks for his experience under the post doctoral category cannot be allotted to him. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the West Bengal College Service Commission during his elaborate submission has stated that as the post-doctoral research experience certificate of the respondent/ writ petitioner was not produced before the West Bengal College Service Commission on the date of interview, that is on the 2nd day of April 2019 or before the publication of the merit list published on the 2nd day of November 2019 so, the respondent/writ petitioner was not awarded one extra mark each for every year for the two years claimed of his post-doctoral research experience. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner has submitted that the instant appeal has been preferred by the West Bengal College Service Commission being aggrieved by the Judgement and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench directing the said Commission to verify the certificate produced by the writ petitioner in support of his post doctoral research experience and if the said certificate is found to be genuine then the Commission shall award necessary marks to the writ petitioner and thereafter add the additional marks to the marks already awarded in his favour and if after addition of the extra marks the position of the petitioner in the merit panel changes then the petitioner shall be appropriately placed in the provisional merit panel and if thereafter the respondent comes within the zone of consideration then the recommendation letter is to be issued in his favour. 8. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the said Commission had not accepted any papers/ documents regarding educational qualification, experience certificate, publication of articles, with the application form as the advertisement had provided that the candidates must show the certificates in original during the interview. He has further submitted that the respondent/writ petitioner got the post doctoral experience certificate from his Supervisor/ Associate Professor on 08.03.2019, that is prior to the date of interview which was held on 02.04.2019. He has further submitted that the respondent/writ petitioner got the post doctoral experience certificate from his Supervisor/ Associate Professor on 08.03.2019, that is prior to the date of interview which was held on 02.04.2019. He has also submitted that the said Commission being satisfied with the eligibility criteria furnished by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had called him for interview and the respondent had appeared in the said interview and had produced all the original certificates including the post doctoral experience certificate at the time of interview. 9. The Learned Counsel has submitted that in the advertisement it was specifically mentioned that the certificates/ documents will be verified during interview. Learned Counsel has submitted that it is apparent that the candidates must produce all the original documents as well as the photo copies of the same otherwise his candidature would have been rejected and as the respondent/writ petitioner ranked 70th in the panel for unreserved category so, it is obvious that at the time of interview the respondent writ petitioner had produced all the relevant documents including the post doctoral experience certificate. Relying on the said facts and circumstances the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 10. This Court agrees with the finding of the Hon’ble Single Bench that the application filed online by the petitioner clearly mentioned that the applicant possessed post-doctoral research experience for the period from the 1st day of September 2016 to the 31stday of December 2018 and the certificate was issued in favour of the applicant by the University of Porto on the 8th day of March 2019. The said certificate was issued by the Associate Professor of the University of Porto (Portugal) wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had worked since September 2016 and his research work has been published in several international journals. 11. This Court is at one with the opinion of the Hon’ble Single Bench which has opined that it is not understandable as to why a candidate who has the requisite qualification and the necessary documents in support of the same will withhold the documents and will not produce the same at the time of interview even after knowing the fact that the said document was of extreme importance for the purpose of awarding marks. This Court is also of the similar view as that of the Hon’ble Single Bench that any prudent person looking for a job will certainly produce all his certificates and documents before the selection body without concealing the same to be produced later on being fully aware of the fact that he may lose his chance to be selected if the document is not placed on record. 12. This Court is of the same view as that of the Hon’ble Single Bench wherein the Hon’ble Single Bench has come to the conclusion that the certificate reflecting the post-doctoral research experience from the University of Porto for the period between the 1st day of September 2016 to the 31st day of December 2018 was duly produced by the petitioner at the time of interview but possibly due to inadvertence the Commission overlooked the same and accordingly the marks on account of post-doctoral research experience could not be awarded to him. While dealing with the said fact, the Hon’ble Single Bench has also mentioned that in this case the writ petitioner has approached the Court during the validity of the said panel and as such the Hon’ble Single Bench has been pleased to direct the Commission to verify the certificate produced by the petitioner in support of his post-doctoral research experience and in the event the certificate was genuine, then the Commission shall award necessary marks to the petitioner and thereafter add the additional marks to the marks already awarded in his favour and, if after addition of the extra marks the position of the petitioner in the provisional merit panel changes, then the petitioner shall be appropriately placed in the provisional merit panel and if thereafter the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration then the recommendation letter is to be issued in his favour, notwithstanding the fact that the panel in question had expired in the meantime. 13. This Court accepts the elaborate discussion made by the Hon’ble Single Bench that the respondent/writ petitioner through his Exception filed against the Report filed by the Commission has submitted that the writ petitioner has submitted all the documents along with post-doctoral research experience certificate on the date of interview. 13. This Court accepts the elaborate discussion made by the Hon’ble Single Bench that the respondent/writ petitioner through his Exception filed against the Report filed by the Commission has submitted that the writ petitioner has submitted all the documents along with post-doctoral research experience certificate on the date of interview. It has also been mentioned that the officials of the said Commission had checked and verified all the documents in support of his qualifications and degree disclosed in the application form and after being satisfied with his candidature had accepted the application of the respondent. 14. The Hon’ble Single Bench has also discussed the fact that the application filed online by the respondent/writ petitioner clearly mentions that the respondent possessed the post-doctoral research experience certificate for the period between 01.09.2016 and 31.12.2018 and the said certificate was issued on 08.03.2019 by the Associate Professor of the University of Porto (Portugal). In the said certificate it has been mentioned that the petitioner worked since September 2016 and his research work has been published in several international journals. 15. The crux of the instant lis is as to whether the post doctoral research experience certificate was produced by the respondent / writ petitioner on the date of interview or not. This Court accepts the discussion of the Hon’ble Single Bench that the respondent/writ petitioner at the time of filing the application had mentioned that he has experience of post doctoral research for the period of two years and the relevant certificate has been issued by the University of Porto prior to the date of interview. 16. The Commission has not alleged that the said certificate is an antedated one and has also not alleged that the said certificate has been procured later on and is not a genuine one and is being used for the purpose of appointment. The Commission has only raised the issue that the certificate was not produced on the date of interview and as such the marks meant to be allotted on account of post-doctoral research experience has not been awarded to the writ petitioner. 17. This Court accepts the view of the Hon’ble Single Bench that a person having a qualification and the document issued in respect of the said qualification will not withhold the said document. 17. This Court accepts the view of the Hon’ble Single Bench that a person having a qualification and the document issued in respect of the said qualification will not withhold the said document. The Hon’ble Single Bench has also taken note of the fact that it was instructed to the candidates by the Commission that candidates were to submit the print out of the application form submitted online along with self attested photo copies of all the relevant documents which are required to be verified during the interview. The Commission had also notified that the original certificates were required to be produced during the interview failing which the candidature was to be rejected. 18. The Hon’ble Single Bench has taken into consideration that as the respondent/writ petitioner had disclosed his educational qualification including his post doctoral research experience and he possessed the certificate in support of the same, it is to be taken into consideration that the petitioner must have produced all his documents in support of his contention at the time of his interview. It has also been taken into consideration that the candidature of the writ petitioner had not been rejected because of non furnishing of the certificate. 19. The Hon’ble Single Bench has also taken into consideration that the writ petitioner had approached the Court during the validity period of the panel, which has also been considered by this Court. 20. The moot point of the instant appeal is as to whether the respondent had complied with the provisions as laid down in the publication of the advertisement for the said recruitment. 21. From the facts and the circumstances it reveals that the respondent had possessed the post-doctoral research experience from the 1st day of September 2016 to the 31st day of December 2018 and as such the respondent had the experience of two years of post doctoral research both prior to the date of interview, that is the 2nd day of April 2019 and also in terms of the outer date for possessing such experience as stated in the advertisement to be 31st August, 2018 having regard to the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had joined as post doctoral research fellow in September 2016 and by 31st August, 2018 already possessed two years experience. 22. In the light of the above discussion, the Order impugned of the Hon’ble Single Bench stands affirmed. 23. 22. In the light of the above discussion, the Order impugned of the Hon’ble Single Bench stands affirmed. 23. MAT 1129 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 stand accordingly dismissed. 24. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court. 25. Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.