JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The appellant assails the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No.13936 of 2024, since it has found the 1 st respondent eligible to be considered for appointment to its services as a “Senior System Officer.” 2. The specific contention of Sri. M.R. Anison – learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, is that the 1 st respondent does not have the work experience as required under Ext.P1 notification and consequently, that the declarations in the judgment are incorrect and impermissible. 3. Sri.K.M.Firoz – learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, controverted the afore submissions, relying primarily upon Exts.P14 and P15 proceedings of the 1 st appellant and arguing that whatever be the contentions that may be urged, and even assuming they can be accepted, the fact remains that his client was directly involved in the “e-Courts project” as a System Assistant at least from the date on which Ext.P15 was issued, namely, 29.06.2020. He pointed out that, as per Ext.P1, the work experience requisite is only for three years prior to its date and that the 1 st appellant themselves had issued Ext.P3 – Experience Certificate to his client affirming this. He argued that, in such circumstances, this appeal by the appellants against the judgment is uncharitable and unnecessary. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and must record upfront that we are in approval of the findings and holdings therein. 5. The controversy involved in this case is solely whether the 1 st respondent has the necessary qualification as per Ext.P1 notification dated 27.10.2023. 6. As the learned Single Judge has rightly noticed, Ext.P1, apart from educational qualifications, provides for work experience of three years and above in “e-Courts project” in Kerala as System Assistant/System Officer/Senior System Officer. The contentions of the appellants is that the 1 st respondent did not work as a System Assistant/System Officer/Senior System Officer in the “e-Courts project” in Kerala, but was appointed as a System Assistant only in the “Planning and Management Unit” in the High Court of Kerala. According to them, the work profile of a System Assistant in the “Planning and Management Unit” is drastically different from that in the “e-Courts project” and hence that such experience cannot be reckoned. 7. According to them, the work profile of a System Assistant in the “Planning and Management Unit” is drastically different from that in the “e-Courts project” and hence that such experience cannot be reckoned. 7. We had considered this matter, rather extensively on 20.05.2026, when we passed an order on the said day as under:- “We have heard these matters in extenso today. 2. However, before we can take a final decision, certain clarifications become imperative. 3. As per the qualification required to the post in question, a candidate must have work experience of three years and above in the ‘E- Courts Project’ as System Assistant/System Officer/Senior System Officer. 4. The 1st respondent in these Appeals - Smt.Aneena Joseph (hereinafter referred by name), maintains that though she was designated as a System Assistant in the ‘Planning and Management Unit’ of the High Court of Kerala, she was deployed to the work under the ‘E-Courts Project’ at least after Ext.P15 order was issued on 29.06.2020; and hence, has three years experience after that to be eligible for appointment. 5. The High Court, on the other hand, contends that Smt.Aneena Joseph worked as a System Assistant only in the ‘Planning and Management Unit’ and was not involved with the ‘E-Courts Project’ for a period of three years as is mandatorily required. 6. However, when we read Ext.P3 – which is the Certificate of Experience issued by the High Court in favour of Smt.Aneena Joseph, it seems to indicate that she was involved in the ‘E-Courts Project’, as also as support for on going E-Courts Project among others. 7. The vital question in this case is not whether Smt.Aneena Joseph worked as System Assistant in one Unit or other, but whether she was involved in the ‘E-Courts Project’, garnering experience of three years and more as System Assistant/System Officer/Senior System Officer. 8. The argument of Sri.K.M.Firoz – learned counsel for Smt.Aneena Joseph, is that the ‘E-Courts Project’ draws personnel from various departments, as evident from Ext.P15; and hence, the requisite of experience would be met if his client had spent three years or more as part of the said Project. 9. Obviously, the High Court will have to clarify, with reference to Ext.P3, whether the work done by Smt.Aneena Joseph was part of the ‘E-Courts Project’ or separate from it. 9. Obviously, the High Court will have to clarify, with reference to Ext.P3, whether the work done by Smt.Aneena Joseph was part of the ‘E-Courts Project’ or separate from it. We have little doubt that the resolution of the issues in these cases depends more or less in the factual realm, especially whether Smt.Aneena Joseph had work experience of three years and more in the ‘E-Courts Project’. 10. As a corollary, we also would require the High Court to clarify who are the persons who are part of the ‘E-Courts Project’ from 2019-2020; and who were the System Assistant/System Officer/Senior System Officer, allotted to the ‘E-Courts Project’ for the period in question.” 8. The learned counsel for the appellants have now filed a Memo dated 29.05.2026, producing therewith a report regarding the duties of the personnel under the “e-Courts project”. As per the said report, they assert that the role of a System Assistant in the “Planning and Management Unit” was primarily software oriented and confined to functions such as software module development, content development and system support activities. They maintain that, in contra-distinction, the responsibility of a System Assistant in the “e-Courts project” are substantially different because it encompasses “grassroots-level infrastructure and hardware support, resolving day-to-day technology-related issues, uploading data to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)” and such other functions. 9. However, pertinently, as noticed above, in Ext.P3 Experience Certificate issued by the appellants themselves, apart from other, the first respondent is certified to have “supported the ongoing e-Court projects through technical support for the smooth functioning of various projects rolled out in Subordinate Courts” (sic) and “by co-ordinating with various stakeholders for timely resolution of issues related with e-Courts services” (sic); as also to have offered “technical support to integration of the e filing module with the court CIS, support to the advocates and co-ordinators” (sic). 10. Rather curiously, in Ext.P15, which is an order issued by the appellants themselves on 29.06.2020, several persons including the 1 st respondent, were specifically ordered to be assigned to the “e-Courts project” and further stipulated that they shall be used by the Technical Director of the National Informatics Centre of the High Court “for implementation of the “e-Courts project” (sic). 11. 11. One, therefore, fails to comprehend how the appellants now take the stand that the 1 st respondent does not have any experience in the “e-Courts project”, solely because she was earlier working as a System Assistant in the “Planning and Management Unit” at the High Court of Kerala. 12. We are fully cognizant that the “Planning and Management Unit” at the High Court is one under the Government of Kerala, but with functions assigned for the purposes of the Court. Ext.P1 notification does not say that the candidate must be working as a System Assistant in the High Court of Kerala, but that he/she ought to have work experience of three years and above in the “e-Courts project” in Kerala in such capacity, or higher. We have little doubt that, going by Ext.P15, the 1 st respondent was drafted into the requirements and the responsibilities under the “e-Courts project” at least from its date; and it is admitted unreservedly that she is still functioning in such capacity. The notification, namely Ext.P1, only required three years experience or above as on its date, namely 27.10.2023; and Ext.P3 Experience Certificate issued to the 1 st respondent by the appellants themselves is dated 11.12.2023 – thus rendering it ineluctable that the requisite work experience has been certified. 13. When, at least by Ext.P15, the 1 st respondent is seen to have been drafted into the “e-Courts project” one cannot understand how the appellants now maintain that her experience is different from a System Assistant working for such project earlier, even when the duties assigned to her and others in the said proceedings are exclusively with respect to the “e-Courts project.” 14. That apart, even to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.M.R.Anison was unable to inform us whether there was a dedicated “e-Courts project” Unit in the High Court of Kerala prior to Ext.P15 and whether there was a post of a System Assistant attached to it. To our information, which remains uncontroverted even now, it was the Officers of the High Court and from the “Planning and Management Unit” who were in charge of “e-Courts project” until such time as Exts.P14 and P15 orders were issued, leading to Ext.P16 proceedings. 15. To our information, which remains uncontroverted even now, it was the Officers of the High Court and from the “Planning and Management Unit” who were in charge of “e-Courts project” until such time as Exts.P14 and P15 orders were issued, leading to Ext.P16 proceedings. 15. In such perspective, we cannot find the learned Single Judge to have erred in any manner, particularly since he has held that the experience garnered by the 1 st respondent at least after Ext.P15, would sufficiently answer the requisites mandated by Ext.P1 notification. In summation, we dismiss this appeal.