MR. N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Union Public Service Commission, to quash the order of the first respondent herein made in O.A. No. 1044 of 2010, dated 21.2.2013.

2. The above said O.A. was filed by the second respondent herein, to direct the petitioner herein to consider the application submitted by her for the post of Examiner of Trade Marks and Geographical Indication (Serial No.1 of Advertisement No. 12 of 2009), published by the petitioner herein. The second respondent herein, prior to her submission of application, worked as Junior Lawyer for the period from 22.10.2003 to 30.11.2007 and thereafter, she was working as an Examiner on contract basis in the office of the Intellectual Property Office, Trade Mark Registry, Chennai, from 6.12.2007 till the date of submission of her application. The second respondent herein applied for the said post, which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner herein. However, she was not called for interview and the candidates, who applied along with her, were called for interview held on 6th to 8.9.2010, at New Delhi. Hence, the second respondent herein filed O.A. No. 1044 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, praying for a direction to consider her application to the post of Examiner of Trade Marks and Geographical Indication.

3. During the pendency of the said O.A., an interim order was passed to call the second respondent for interview and accordingly, she was also called for interview and the result of the second respondent herein is withheld. The Central Administrative Tribunal finally allowed the O.A. on 21.2.2013, with a direction to the petitioner herein to publish the result of the interview in respect of the second respondent and if the second respondent is found eligible to be recommended for selection, she may be considered and appointed for the post of Examiner of Trade Marks and Geographical Indication, as per Rules.

4. The Tribunal considered the claim of the second respondent on the basis of her claim of experience stated in the Application Form claiming experience from 22.10.2003 to 30.11.2007 as Junior Lawyer and as Examiner on contract basis in the office of the Intellectual Property Office, Trade Mark Registry, G.S.T. Road, Guindy Chennai-600 032, from 06.12.2007 onwards, for which, the second respondent herein also produced signed Experience Certificate. Subsequently, i.e., before the interview date, on a perusal of the original record, it is seen that the second respondent herein, along with representation dated 25.08.2010, enclosed an Experience Certificate, dated 20.10.2009, which is certified as follows:-

“This is to certify that M. Mahalakshmi, daughter of P.G. Mohan, residing at H.18, New No.35, Central Avenue, Korattur, Chennai 600 080 had been working as a junior lawyer under me representing civil cases before the Hon’ble High Court and other subordinate courts for the period from 22/10/2003 to 30/11/2007 and she had been paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. She had performed the work allotted to her in an efficient manner and her conduct is good”.

From the above Certificate, it is clear that the second respondent herein is having experience as claimed in her Application Form. We have also perused the original application and seen the details stated about the experience in the column provided.

5. Now, the question to be considered is, as to Whether the submission of xerox copy of the Experience Certificate along with the Application Form is mandatory or directory.

6. The above said issue was already considered by the First Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 259 of 2013, by judgment dated 26.04.2013, of which one of us (NPVJ) is a party. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew AIR 1980 SC 1230 : (1980) 2 SCC 752 : LNIND 1980 SC 126 and Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee AIR 2004 SC 5043 : (2005) 9 SCC 779 : LNIND 2004 SC 1031 : (2004) 4 MLJ 111 was followed and the c