JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed under section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the 1 st respondent in W.P.(C) No.43603 of 2023, challenging the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The 1 st respondent/writ petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 08.05.2021 for the post of System Administrator notified by virtue of Ext.P1 notification dated 30.04.2021, in the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. The 1 st respondent did not find a place in the shortlist for the reason that the declaration part in the Experience Certificate filled up by the Attesting Officer did not mention the nature of the work, but, mentioned only the designation of the post held by the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent then submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 10.12.2023 to the appellant. Thereafter, he filed the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To direct the 1 st respondent (appellant herein) to provide some additional time to correct and rectify the mistake happened by the attesting officer in the declaration part of the experience certificate and consider the same after due verification.” 3. The appellant filed a counter affidavit dated22.02.2024 in writ petition. 4. As per the interim order dated 09.02.2024, the learned Single Judge permitted the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner to upload Ext.P7 rectified Experience Certificate dated 12.01.2024 and allowed him to participate in the interview. Thereafter, by the order dated 14.02.2024, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant/Kerala Public Service Commission to permit the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner to provisionally participate in the interview. In compliance with that order, the 1 st respondent was allowed to participate in the interview for the post of System Administrator. 5. After considering the materials on record and the submissions made at the bar, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant/Kerala Public Service Commission to publish the result of the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner along with other candidates for the post of System Administrator in Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. It was made clear in the impugned judgment that the order has been passed in the facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent. 6. 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Kerala Public Service Commission, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent Corporation. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant would submit that in Ext.P4 Experience Certificate dated 05.09.2023 submitted by the 1 st respondent along with the application for the post of System Administrator, the required qualification for the post of System Administrator was not entered in the declaration portion. The insertion regarding the required qualification was made subsequently in Ext.P7 certificate submitted by the 1 st respondent. Ext.P7 certificate was obtained by the 1 st respondent on 12.01.2024. However, the list of selected candidates was finalised by the appellant on 18.10.2023. It was without considering all these aspects the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge took the case of the 1 st respondent as a special one on the peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, no interference is needed to the impugned judgment. 9. As per Ext.P1 notification dated 30.04.2021 the qualifications prescribed for the post of System Administrator are: “1. B.Tech (Computer Science)/B.Tech (Information Technology) OR MCA obtained after a regular course of study from a recognized university or from an institution recognized by the State/Central Government. OR B.Tech in any discipline from a recognized University with PGDCA obtained by State/Central Governments after a regular course of study. 2. Two years Experience in Data Processing/Software Development in a Government/Quasi Government undertaking or in a registered private sector undertaking.” 10. The last date of receipt of applications as per Ext.P1 notification was on 02.06.2021 up to 12 midnight. In pursuance to the notification, the 1 st respondent submitted Ext.P2 application and participated in the written test for the post. Subsequently, as directed by the appellant, the 1 st respondent uploaded Ext.P4 certificate of experience dated 24.03.2020, which was attested on 05.09.2023. In that certificate of experience, it was entered that the 1 st respondent was working as a Senior Software Engineer. Since the experience certificate uploaded by the 1 st respondent did not satisfy the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, he was not shortlisted. 11. In that certificate of experience, it was entered that the 1 st respondent was working as a Senior Software Engineer. Since the experience certificate uploaded by the 1 st respondent did not satisfy the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, he was not shortlisted. 11. In Kerala Public Service Commission, Trivandrum v. Sony P.M. and Others [ 2016 (1) KLT 293 ] a Division Bench of this Court while considering the writ appeals filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing to include the writ petitioners therein in the selection list to the post of Blacksmith Gr.II. held thus: ’’15. Paragraph 29 of Part II of the General Conditions stipulates that applications which do not conform to the instructions given by the Commission and the guidelines therein are liable to be rejected. Candidates applying for the post are therefore bound to submit an experience certificate in the prescribed form. It is explicit from a reading of paragraph 29 of the General Conditions that applications which do not conform to the conditions laid down by the Commission are liable to be rejected. The writ petitioners in the instant cases have not produced experience certificates in the form prescribed by the Commission. Their applications were, therefore, liable to be rejected as invalid. The writ petitioners who have not produced experience certificates in the form prescribed by the Commission cannot in our opinion, be heard to contend that notwithstanding the defective experience certificates produced by them, their applications should be entertained. Though in a few cases, insistence on the production of an experience certificate in the prescribed form may lead to inconvenience and cause hardship to applicants and a few persons may be disabled from applying for the post, having regard to the purpose underlying the stipulation made by the Commission that the attesting officer shall attest the experience certificates only after verification of the registers maintained by the employer, we find no reason to take a different view and hold that the stipulation is not mandatory in nature. It is only if an experience certificate in the proforma prescribed by the Commission is submitted that the Commission can ascertain whether the certificate is bogus or not and take action against the erring candidate/officer. It is only if an experience certificate in the proforma prescribed by the Commission is submitted that the Commission can ascertain whether the certificate is bogus or not and take action against the erring candidate/officer. The Commission cannot, in the absence of records, conduct a roving enquiry or adduce evidence for the purpose of deciding whether the countersigning officer has countersigned the experience certificate after being satisfied about the genuineness of the certificate issued by the employer to the employee or that the applicant has the requisite experience. These aspects of the matter have not been considered either in Ext.P6 judgment or by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgments. We accordingly hold that the impugned judgments are liable to be reversed and the writ petitions dismissed.’’ [Emphasis Supplied] 12. From Ext.P4 experience certificate initially uploaded by the 1 st respondent within the time period stipulated by the appellant, it is evident that the declaration in that certificate lacks the required qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. It was only after the finalisation of the selection list, the 1 st respondent got that certificate rectified by making an insertion of the qualification. In such circumstances, we find no ground to take the case of the 1 st respondent as a special one. Viewed in the light of the judgment of this Court in Sony P.M. [ 2016 (1) KLT 293 ] we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C)No.43603 of 2023 and the writ petition stands dismissed.