JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. The most question, which arises for determination in the case at hand is “whether experience certificate (Annexure P­9) issued by Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian, District Solan. whereby, it came to be certified that petitioner herein worked as Language Teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian on voluntary basis, without conducting interview w.e.f. 06.09.2012 to 01.01.2019 could be ignored by HP Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, while considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Language Teacher on the ground that services were rendered by the petitioner during afore period on voluntary basis. 2. For having birds eye view of the matter, facts relevant for the adjudication of case are that on 18.06.2020 respondent No.3 issued advertisement No.36­2 of 2020 for filling up the post of Language Teacher (Annexure P2) under post Code No.814. In total, 11 posts of Language Teacher (on contract basis) in the pay scale Rs.10,300/­ ­ 34,800/­ + 3200 Grade Pay came to be advertised vide advertisement, out of which 6 were reserved for General category/unreserved, EWS­01, SC(UR)­03, OBC(UR). Petitioner being fully eligible submitted her application on the prescribed format, which was duly considered by respondent No.3, but the fact remains that petitioner, despite having secured 61.12 marks, failed to qualify. Since respondent commissioned refused to accept experience certificate submitted by petitioner at the time of interview, as a result thereof, 2.5 marks, for which petitioner was entitled to, were not awarded, petitioner has approached this Court in instant proceedings filed under Article 226 Constitution of India praying therein for the following main relief : That respondent No.3 may be directed to provide 2.5 marks of experience to the petitioner and thereafter re­draw the select list of the candidates for the post of Language Teachers. 3. It is not in dispute that vide Notification dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P1), issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Appointment­II discontinued the process to hold interview in respect of direct recruitment for making recommendations of Class III and Clause IV employees and fixed certain parameters, thereby detailing marks to be given to the candidates on the basis of their qualifications as well as experience. As per clause XI 2.5 aforesaid notification Clause (XI), 2.5 marks are/were to be awarded for experience up to maximum 5 years in Government/Semi­Government organization relating to the post applied for. 4. As per clause XI 2.5 aforesaid notification Clause (XI), 2.5 marks are/were to be awarded for experience up to maximum 5 years in Government/Semi­Government organization relating to the post applied for. 4. Precisely the grouse of the petitioner as is highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Sh. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel, representing the petitioner is that once petitioner had submitted certificate dated 29.04.2021, issued by Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School Barian, whereby it came to be certified that the petitioner has worked as a Language Teacher in the School concerned on voluntary basis w.e.f. 06.09.2012 to 01.01.2019, she ought to have been awarded 2.5 marks by the respondent No.3, while evaluating/verifying the documents, furnished by the petitioner, Mr. Okar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that had respondent No.3 awarded 2.5 marks to the petitioner on account of experience, she would have got 63.62 marks, which were higher than cut off marks at the relevant time, which has now been reduced to 61.15 marks. On account of non joining of certain selected candidates, posts were filled up from amongst the candidates from the waiting list. 5. Pursuant to notices, issued in the instant proceedings respondents have filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove have not been disputed, and rather stand admitted. While fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to furnishing of certificate dated 29.04.2021, issued under the signature of Principal, Govt. School, Barian, it has been claimed on behalf of respondent­ commission that though the petitioner, Bimla Devi had worked as a Language Teacher in the aforesaid School on voluntary basis but her appointment was not in accordance with the Rules and as such certificate issued by Principal concerned was rightly not considered. 6. Ms. Suchitra Sen, learned Counsel representing respondent Commission, while making this Court peruse the record vehemently argued that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that petitioner was actually appointed as Language Teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian, pursuant to advertisement, if any, issued by the School Management Committee at the relevant time, if it is so, certificate issued by Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian, is of no relevance and rightly was not taken into consideration. Senior Secondary School, Barian, pursuant to advertisement, if any, issued by the School Management Committee at the relevant time, if it is so, certificate issued by Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian, is of no relevance and rightly was not taken into consideration. While refuting the documents placed on record by the petitioner along with rejoinder, suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein was appointed as a Language Teacher, pursuant to resolution passed by School Management Committee, Ms. Suchitra Sen, learned counsel representing the respondent­commission argued that though documents placed on record suggest that resolution was passed to appoint Language Teacher on voluntary basis but there is nothing on record to suggest that at the relevant time, advertisement if any, was ever issued, thereby inviting applications from the desirous candidates. 7. Sh. R.L Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the private respondent, also supported the action of respondent No.3, in not taking into consideration the experience certificate furnished by petitioner. Mr. R.L Chaudhary submitted that bare perusal of experience certificate placed on record clearly reveals that the petitioner was given appointment by the Principal, without following the due process of law and as such, it can be safely held that certificate has been issued purposely, with a view to give undue benefit to the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner being eligible, was permitted to participate in the selection process initiated by respondent commission, vide advertisement dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure P2) and she having qualified the screening test was further called for interview. If the result sheet (Annexure P­12) prepared by Commission is perused, it clearly reveals that the petitioner was able to make her place at Sr. No.14 on account of her having obtained 61.12 marks, whereas cut off marks for the general category/unreserved was 61.52. Admittedly perusal of mark sheet, as detailed hereinabove, nowhere reveals that the marks, if any, qua experience certificate furnished by petitioner were awarded to her. Had respondent No.3 awarded marks to the petitioner on account of experience, she would have got 63.62 marks, meaning thereby, she would have been selected. 9. Now the question, which remains to be determined is, “whether the certificate furnished by petitioner on account of her experience could have been ignored by the respondent commission or not?”. 10. Admittedly certificate dated 29.04.2021, has been issued by Principal Govt. 9. Now the question, which remains to be determined is, “whether the certificate furnished by petitioner on account of her experience could have been ignored by the respondent commission or not?”. 10. Admittedly certificate dated 29.04.2021, has been issued by Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian, wherein it has been certified that petitioner had worked as a Language Teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian w.e.f. 06.09.2012 to 01.01.2019 i.e. more than 6 years. Notification dated 17.04.2017, wherein provision has been made to award marks qua experience, clearly reveals that 2.5 marks are to be given for experience up to maximum 5 years in Government/Semi­Government organization relating to the post applied. 11. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner had furnished experience certificate for the work she rendered in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian, meaning thereby, certificate was otherwise valid and required to be taken into consideration by respondent­ Commission. Though respondent­Commission has not disputed the fact with regard to issuance of certificate by Principal concerned of the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian but refused to grant marks qua the same on the ground that the appointment against the post of Language Teacher, may be on voluntary basis, by the School Management Committee (SMC) of the School, was not in accordance with law. 12. Though, this Court after having perused documents placed on record by the petitioner along with CMP No.17038 of 2023, finds that School Management Committee (SMC) of school concerned, before appointing petitioner as voluntary Language Teacher, had passed resolution, which was signed by more than 60 members. Perusal of the aforesaid resolution clearly reveals that SMC of the school concerned, with a view to protect the interest of students, decided to engage the Language Teacher on voluntary basis, till the time regular hand is made available by the Government. 13. Though, there is nothing on record to suggest that pursuant to aforesaid resolution, advertisement if any, was issued by SMC thereby inviting applications, but admittedly, vide application dated 05.09.2012, petitioner requested President SMC of the school concerned to appoint her as a Language Teacher on voluntary basis. Otherwise also, experience certificate placed on record itself suggests that Principal of the concerned school gave appointment to the petitioner on voluntary basis without conducting any interview. 14. Once, factum with regard to issuance of certificate by Principal of Govt. Otherwise also, experience certificate placed on record itself suggests that Principal of the concerned school gave appointment to the petitioner on voluntary basis without conducting any interview. 14. Once, factum with regard to issuance of certificate by Principal of Govt. Senior Secondary School is not in dispute, it is not open for respondent commission to ignore the aforesaid experience certificate on the ground that the selection of the petitioner against the post in question in the year 2012 was not in accordance with law. Otherwise also marks, if any, were to be awarded qua the experience, which admittedly petitioner gained, may be while working voluntarily in a Govt. Senior Secondary School. 15. The moot question is “experience”, and not the manner it has been acquired. Once, it is not in dispute that petitioner had acquired experience by rendering services in Govt. Senior Secondary School, respondent­commission ought to have awarded her 2.5 marks in terms of notification dated 17.04.2017. 16. In similar facts and circumstances, Coordinate Bench of this Court in case, Ravi Kumar Versus State of HP and Others, CWP No.2237 of 2019, decided on 25.08.2023 held that, merely the fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of TGT (Arts) on Local SMC basis, will not alter the fact that he had experience of more than five years of teaching against a duly sanctioned post of TGT (Arts) in a Government School. Nature of his appointment, be it regular or contractual, ad­hoc or stop­gap, SMC basis or Local SMC basis, will not make any difference to his experience. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:­ “5(v) Respondent No.2 did not grant marks for petitioner’s experience certificate on the ground that it had taken a decision not to award marks for experience obtained while working on Local SMC basis. It was not for respondent No.2 to substitute terms & conditions of the advertisement with its own decisions that too taken post issuance of the advertisement. No such authority vested with respondent No.2. Also it was not for respondent No.2 to discard an experience certificate on the ground that the same was not issued on the prescribed format and did not reflect the salary drawn by him. Firstly, there was no such format mentioned in the advertisement. No such authority vested with respondent No.2. Also it was not for respondent No.2 to discard an experience certificate on the ground that the same was not issued on the prescribed format and did not reflect the salary drawn by him. Firstly, there was no such format mentioned in the advertisement. The conditions given in the advertisement for counting the experience for the purpose of award of marks were fulfilled in the petitioner’s experience certificate. Secondly, the certificate being not on the format, is otherwise a curative defect as held in CWP No. 3035 of 2019 (Sunita Devi Vs. The Himachal Pradesh State Selection Commission & others and connected matters), decided on 25.11.2019. Regarding non mentioning of petitioner’s salary in his certificate, suffice to observe that neither there was any such term in the advertisement, nor the format prescribing filling up of salary was part of the advertisement and in any case reality of petitioner’s experience will not vanish in thin air just because he did not take any salary or was not paid any salary. What is important is that he had the requisite experience and it was certified so by the competent authority.” 17. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as judgment passed by Coordinate Bench, as taken note hereinabove, action of respondent­Commission in not awarding marks to petitioner qua experience is not sustainable and deserves to be rectified in accordance with law. 18. No doubt, record reveals that on account of non joining of certain selected candidates, few persons from the waiting panel list stand selected against the advertised post, as a result thereof, cut off marks has further been reduced to 61.16 marks. But such fact, if any, may not deter this Court from allowing the petition, especially when it is totally convinced that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of wrong interpretation of Clause (xi) of notification dated 17.04.2017, made by respondent­Commission. 19. As has been observed hereinabove, the petitioner is entitled to 2.5 marks on account of her having gained experience of more than 6 years. 20. Consequently in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondent­Commission is directed to award 2.5 marks to the petitioner on account of her having gained experience of up to 5 years, while working as a Language Teacher in Govt. 20. Consequently in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondent­Commission is directed to award 2.5 marks to the petitioner on account of her having gained experience of up to 5 years, while working as a Language Teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barian and thereafter she be offered appointment on notional basis from the date, other candidates have been appointed and actual benefit shall be given from the date of appointment. Since private respondents were not at fault and subsequent to their appointment, few persons were able to get the appointment on account of non­joining of the selected candidates, this Court also order to protect appointment of such persons. 21. In view of aforesaid terms, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.