Termination cannot be based solely on omission of salary from an otherwise authentic experience certificate.

The respondent was selected for appointment as Examiner (Skill) after successfully completing the recruitment process and was appointed on 18 March 2013.

During recruitment, he submitted a provisional ITI certificate and an experience certificate dated 7 June 2012.

Shortly before completion of his probation, the employer terminated his services on 14 March 2015 on the ground that he lacked the requisite qualification and experience, particularly because his experience certificate did not mention the salary drawn.

The respondent subsequently produced another certificate dated 18 March 2015 from the same factory, recording that he had worked as a Fitter in the Mechanic Department from 1 April 2010 to 1 May 2012 and had drawn a fortnightly salary of Rs. 1,550.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 350/00634/2015, quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits within four months.

The Union of India and its authorities challenged that order before the High Court.

The Tribunal’s direction had not been implemented when the writ petition was heard.

Whether the respondent’s termination was justified on the ground that the experience certificate submitted during recruitment did not mention the salary drawn.

Whether the subsequent experience certificate, which specified the respondent’s salary, established that he lacked the requisite qualification or experience at the time of selection and appointment.

Whether the Tribunal’s order directing reinstatement with consequential benefits suffered from any legal or factual error warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principle that termination cannot be sustained where the employee’s eligibility and experience are established through authentic and materially consistent documents, and where the alleged deficiency is merely a non-substantive omission not required by the recruitment advertisement.

The Court further applied the rule that judicial review of a Tribunal’s decision is not warranted in the absence of a demonstrable error of law or fact.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment; the Court’s reasoning was based on the authenticity, consistency, and substantive adequacy of the respondent’s qualification and experience certificates.

The Court found that the respondent’s selection process, eligibility assessment, and appointment were not disputed.

The ITI certificate was genuine, and the experience certificate dated 7 June 2012 was issued by the same factory in which the respondent had worked as a Fitter for approximately three years—substantially exceeding the one year’s experience required by the advertisement.

The later certificate dated 18 March 2015 merely added the fortnightly salary of Rs. 1,550 and was otherwise materially identical to the earlier certificate; it did not contradict or invalidate the earlier document.

Since the advertisement did not require candidates to disclose their salary in the experience certificate, the omission was not substantive enough to establish ineligibility or justify termination.

The Court therefore held that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and had committed no error warranting interference.

It held that the omission of salary particulars from the original experience certificate did not negate the respondent’s requisite experience or justify termination, particularly when the later certificate from the same employer confirmed the relevant employment and salary details.

The writ petition was dismissed, the Tribunal’s order was upheld, and the Rule was discharged.