JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. This original petition has been filed by a candidate, who was advised and appointed to the post of Binder Grade II through by transfer appointment. The issue centered around her experience certificate issued by a proprietory concern having recognition from the Government of Kerala. 2. It is appropriate to refer to the qualifications for the post of Binder Grade II, which read as follows: “7. Qualifications: (1) Passed in standard VII (new) or its equivalent qualification. (2) Pass in Madras Government Technical Examination or Kerala Government Technical Examination (Lower) in Book Binding. Note: Rule 10(a) ii of part II of KS&SSR is applicable. Note: (i) In the absence of candidates possessing the above qualifications, persons having 18 months experience in Book Binding in a Government Department/Registered Institution shall be considered, provided that they shall prove their proficiency in a practical test to be conducted by the Public Service Commission. (ii) The term ‘Registered Institution’ referred to above means a firm or a company or a Society registered under the Companies Act or Charitable Societies or Co-op Societies Act or Small Scale Industrial units registered with the Industries Development Commission (SSI) or any other Act recognised by Government to enable the firm/company/Society/ Unit to be recognised as legal entity.” 3. The petitioner herein produced a certificate issued by a proprietory concern. This was challenged by another candidate, the first respondent/applicant. According to the applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the qualification obtained by the petitioner herein is not from a legal entity, but from a proprietory concern, and therefore, that qualification cannot be accepted. Accepting the challenge as above, the Tribunal allowed the original application. This is how the selected candidate approached this Court. 4. We adverted to the qualifications prescribed as above. We find that there is no distinction to be made between a proprietory concern and any other juridical entity for the purpose of reckoning qualification. An entity may be a juridical entity or non juridical entity for the purpose of law. That may not have a bearing as far as the qualification is concerned if the qualification has any traceable link with the nature of experience acquired from such concern. There are two decisive factors in this; firstly, an 18 months’ experience and secondly, the acquisition of experience from any entity, which has got some recognition under law. That may not have a bearing as far as the qualification is concerned if the qualification has any traceable link with the nature of experience acquired from such concern. There are two decisive factors in this; firstly, an 18 months’ experience and secondly, the acquisition of experience from any entity, which has got some recognition under law. The second part is the issue, which actually meant to verify the credibility of such experience certificate to ensure that actual experience is acquired from such institute having recognition. The composition of the institute is not the issue, but the nature of the institute, which has got any recognition under law. The proprietory concern, admittedly, is recognized by the industrial department as evident from Annex.A9. That means, the credibility of the institute is verified. 5. It is to be noted that in the “Note” in the “Qualifications” itself, Small Scale Industrial units registered with the Industries Development Commission are also included under the term ‘Registered Institution’. This is to show that if such concern is having any recognition by the industrial department, any certificate issued by such concern is valid. The composition of such institute may vary with proprietory concern, firm, industry etc. as the case may be. That is not the concern for the recruiter to disqualify or qualify a candidate for selection. But, what is the concern with the recruiter is only regarding the nature of acquisition obtained by such candidate from any recognized institute or body as stipulated in the notification. That be the case, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the matter merely stating that acquisition is obtained from a proprietory concern, not from a firm or company, which is not a stipulation in the notification. The emphasis in the notification itself is to verify the nature of the entity that grants certificate and it must have recognition by the industrial department or under any other Act recognised by Government. 6. In this case, the certificate was produced from a proprietory concern having recognition by the industrial department that would be sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the criteria. It is to be noted that the Public Service Commission as well as the Government found not fault with such qualification. 6. In this case, the certificate was produced from a proprietory concern having recognition by the industrial department that would be sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the criteria. It is to be noted that the Public Service Commission as well as the Government found not fault with such qualification. Therefore, it is not for the purpose of the Tribunal or this Court to sit on such action unless there is a manifest error committed in accepting the qualification. 7. Therefore, the original petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.