Deployment of personnel to specific projects fulfills requisite work experience despite differing initial designations.

The Appellants (High Court of Kerala) challenged a Single Judge’s judgment which declared the 1st Respondent, Aneena Joseph, eligible for the post of "Senior System Officer" under Notification Ext.P1 dated 27.10.2023.

The Appellants contended that while the Respondent worked as a System Assistant in the "Planning and Management Unit," she lacked the mandatory three years of experience specifically in the "e-Courts project".

The Respondent relied on an experience certificate (Ext.P3) issued by the Appellants and a deployment order dated 29.06.2020 (Ext.P15) to prove her involvement in the e-Courts project.

1. Whether the 1st Respondent possessed the requisite three years of work experience in the "e-Courts project" as prescribed by the recruitment notification Ext.P1.

2. Whether experience gained as a System Assistant in the "Planning and Management Unit" can be reckoned as experience in the "e-Courts project" when the candidate was specifically drafted for such duties.

The Court applied the principle of "Equivalence of Experience" and "Estoppel by Conduct" regarding official certifications.

Eligibility criteria in the recruitment notification (Ext.P1), which required three years of experience in the "e-Courts project" in Kerala as a System Assistant or higher.

The Court relied on the evidentiary value of an Experience Certificate (Ext.P3) and deployment orders (Ext.P15) issued by the employer itself to determine fulfillment of specialized qualifications.

The Court analyzed the discrepancy between the Appellants' litigation stand and their administrative records.

The Court found that the Appellants’ own Experience Certificate (Ext.P3) explicitly stated the Respondent had "supported the ongoing e-Court projects" and coordinated with stakeholders for "e-Courts services" despite the argument that roles in the "Planning and Management Unit" were distinct.

The Court noted that via Ext.P15 (dated 29.06.2020), the Respondent was specifically assigned to the Technical Director for the "implementation of the e-Courts project".

Since the notification required three years of experience as of 27.10.2023, the Respondent’s tenure from June 2020 onwards (over three years) satisfied the requirement.

The Court also observed that the Appellants could not identify a separate, dedicated "e-Courts project" unit prior to Ext.P15, suggesting that the Planning and Management Unit personnel were the ones actually executing the project.

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal and confirmed the Single Judge's decision that the work experience garnered after Ext.P15 was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of Ext.P1.