JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia for the appellant Rajkot Municipal Corporation and learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for the respondent-original petitioner. 2. The appellant Municipal Corporation has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal seeking to challenge judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 of learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition. 2.1 The operative part in paragraph 15 of the judgment reads as under: “For the aforesaid reasons, this petition as far as petitioner Nos.1 to 4 is concerned is dismissed. For the petitioner No. 5, the petition is allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to appoint the petitioner No. 5 to the post of Assistant Manager as the petitioner No. 5 possesses the requisite administrative experience for selection to the post of Assistant Manager and has also qualified at the selection process initiated for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager. The order of appointment to the petitioner No. 5 shall be issued within ten weeks...” 2.2 The petition was originally filed by five petitioners who prayed for direction against respondent authorities to consider the post of Junior Data Entry Operator at par with post of Junior Clerk for the purpose of counting experience in the field of administration, which was the requirement selection to the post of Assistant Manager. 2.2.1 It was further prayed to declare that the petitioners were eligible for consideration to be selected for the post of Assistant Manager and to appoint them on the post if they qualify in the selection process. 2.3 At the outset, it may be indicated that in course of hearing of the Special Civil Application, interim order dated 06.03.2019 was passed by the Court. All the five petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination which was part of the process of recruitment. The result of the petitioners was ordered to be kept in sealed cover, which was subsequently opened on 22.07.2022. The petitioner No. 5 only was found to be successful in the written examination, therefore, the petition survived for petitioner No. 5 alone, other petitioners having been unable to clear the written examination. 3.1 Noticing the facts, the appellant Rajkot Municipal Corporation initiated the process of recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager by bringing out Circular dated 26.02.2018. It was a post, which required qualification of graduation from the University recognised by the University Grants Commission. 3.1 Noticing the facts, the appellant Rajkot Municipal Corporation initiated the process of recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager by bringing out Circular dated 26.02.2018. It was a post, which required qualification of graduation from the University recognised by the University Grants Commission. The eligibility requirement was inter alia 10 years experience of administrative work in Class-III in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5200-20200/-. One of the condition indicated in the advertisement was that the applications of only those candidates who fulfilled the said eligibility requirement would be considered and all others were liable to be treated as disqualified. The application of the petitioners were received by the appellant. 3.2 The petitioners were not able to download the call letters, to appear in the examination. When inquired, they were informed that they could not be considered for want of administrative work experience. According to the case of the petitioners, as was laid down in the Circular dated 20.01.1996, the Standing Committee of the Corporation specified that the work profile of the petitioners was digitisation of administrative work. It was the case of the petitioners that they fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and indeed administrative work experience to be considered for the selection to the post. 3.3 As the petition is to be considered for petitioner No. 5 only, as stated above, the said petitioner No. 5 joined services as Junior Data Entry Operator on 07.03.2000. On the said post, he had experience of 10 years. However, the authorities discarded the candidature of petitioner No. 5 on the ground that he did not have 10 years' administrative work experience while holding the post of Junior Data Entry Operator. 4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the post of Data Entry Operator where the petitioner worked could be said to be a technical post and the experience on that post could not be counted as experience of administrative work. It was submitted that the recruitment rules and the eligibility criteria did not permit the acceptance of candidature of petitioner and that learned Single Judge committed error in concluding that the petitioner had administrative experience of 10 years. It was submitted that the recruitment rules and the eligibility criteria did not permit the acceptance of candidature of petitioner and that learned Single Judge committed error in concluding that the petitioner had administrative experience of 10 years. 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision in Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 86 particularly on paragraph 55 of the said decision to submit that the question whether a particular qualification or eligibility criteria is fulfilled or not lie within the domain of the employer. It is the employer only, it was submitted, is the best judge to decide the requirement to the post in question. It was submitted with reference to the said decision that the requirement in the instant case stipulated 10 years' administrative work experience, which was not available with the petitioner. It was submitted that self declaration by candidate that he was eligible could not be said to be the fulfilment of eligibility condition. 4.1.1 Learned advocate extensively relied on the decision in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (2007) 8 SCC 644 . He relied on paragraph 15 of the said judgment by highlighting that post of Data Entry Operator in the instant case was technical post and could not carry with it administrative experience for the petitioner. It was further submitted that it was open for the candidate concerned to raise such objection at the initial stage, either in the written examination or at the time of oral interview, but any such objection was not raised. 4.1.2 Highlighting the similar proposition laid down in paragraph 15 of the decision in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra), it was submitted that in any view, it is not for the Courts to find out whether the candidate from the technical side was having administrative experience and that it was the sole discretion of the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether the post which was to be counted for experience was technical post or administrative post. 4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner defended the judgment and order of learned Single Judge to emphasize that the petitioner had the requisite administrative experience for ten years while working on the post of data entry operator. It was highlighted that the post of data entry operator was converted from the post of junior clerk. 4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner defended the judgment and order of learned Single Judge to emphasize that the petitioner had the requisite administrative experience for ten years while working on the post of data entry operator. It was highlighted that the post of data entry operator was converted from the post of junior clerk. Learned advocate for the original petitioner extensively elaborated the nature of duties performed by the petitioner as data entry operator to submit that it was undisputed that the duties were not any comparable, but virtually same. 5. Learned Single Judge distinguished the decision in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra), by extensively referring to it to come to the conclusion that the same operated in the different context. Learned Single Judge observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment that the facts of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra), were that the appellant there was working as X-ray Technician at Behrampura Referral Hospital, that there was no post of Clerk, therefore, the appellant was discharging his duties as X-ray technician and also doing clerical and administrative work collectively. 5.1 According to the employer, he was collecting fees, entering the amount in the cash book, etc. The question before the Supreme Court in that case, it was observed, that whether the appellant fulfilled the requisite criteria of 10 years of experience on administrative side on the post of X-ray technician. Learned Single Judge quoted paragraphs 9 to 15 from the decision of Supreme Court in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra) and categorically found that facts of the case of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra) would support the case of the petitioner no. 5 rather than to the Corporation. 5.1.1 In Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra), though the question was for appointment on the very post of Assistant Manager and what was in focus was fulfilling of requirements of 10 years' of administrative experience, the operative facts were quite different. The appellant was an X-ray technician in the hospital who was doing the mixed duties of technician and performing the administrative nature of work. The medical officer in-charge certified that the appellant was doing administrative work. The Interview Committee also accepted the certificate. 5.1.2 The High Court interfered with the appointment, which decision was set aside by the Supreme Court holding that the appellant satisfied the eligibility condition for appointment as Assistant Manager in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The medical officer in-charge certified that the appellant was doing administrative work. The Interview Committee also accepted the certificate. 5.1.2 The High Court interfered with the appointment, which decision was set aside by the Supreme Court holding that the appellant satisfied the eligibility condition for appointment as Assistant Manager in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. This Court is in agreement with the reasoning of learned Single Judge when he comes to conclusion that the said decision would not go against the petitioner herein, rather stands to support the case of the appellant and had a different issue in the backdrop of facts involved. 5.1.3 In any case, the preset set of facts have different dimensions of its own. Learned Single Judge took into account the relevant aspects to come to the conclusion that the respondent candidate could be said to have been fulfilling the experience requirement. 5.2 In Para 10 of the judgment, learned Single Judge noticed and considered the nature of duties performed by the petitioner no. 5. It was observed that administration included managing or conduct of office or employment. It is performances of executive duties, it was further observed. 5.3 Learned Single Judge stated about the actual nature of work done by the petitioner while working as Junior Data Entry Operator, extracted from paragraph 10: “.....Performance Appraisal Reports indicate that in the brief description of duties it is expressly stated that the work allotted to the petitioner No. 5 by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is to maintain inward outward of letters and files. Go through all the files and personally assist by suggesting/pointing out consequences in it. Correspondence has to be done. Coordination with RMC officials during meetings/various events, coordinate with various Government of Gujarat and Government of India departments for various reasons.” 5.4 It is an aspect to be noticed that the post of Junior Data Entry Operator were created after abolition of the post of Junior Clerk. The newly created post of Junior Data Entry Operators carried the same duties which were done by the Junior Clerks, the earlier designation of the post. Resolution dated 20.01.1996 indicated that there was a change in view of the computerisation. The posts of Junior Data Entry Operators were brought into existence in place of posts of Junior Clerk. What the Junior Clerks were to do manually, the same nature of work was performed by the Junior Data Entry Operators. Resolution dated 20.01.1996 indicated that there was a change in view of the computerisation. The posts of Junior Data Entry Operators were brought into existence in place of posts of Junior Clerk. What the Junior Clerks were to do manually, the same nature of work was performed by the Junior Data Entry Operators. It was the work to be done digitally or using computer but in kind and nature the same. It indeed included administrative nature of work. As such, the work was same, which was performed by the Junior Clerks, but the post was differently designated in view of computerisation. 6. In light of above, learned Single Judge could be said to be entirely justified in allowing the petition for respondent No. 5 holding petitioner No. 5 to be possessing the requisite administrative experience necessary for selection to the post of Assistant Manager. The findings and the final view taken by learned Single Judge are reasonable and rational. This Court is in agreement with the same. 6.1 No interference is called for in this Letters Patent Appeal in the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Appeal is dismissed summarily. 8. The Civil Application would not survive in view of the disposal of the appeal itself.