CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA M.A. No. 350/786/2025 Date of Hearing: 01.11.2025 Date of Order : 09.12.2025 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member Hon’ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member In the matter of :

SRI ABINASH KUMAR, son of late Darogi Prasad, residing at Village Nawtoliya-Bindwara, Post Office Munger, Police Station-Kashim Bazar, District Munger, PIN Code-

811201, Bihar.

......... Applicant -Versus-

1. The Union of India, service through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Kolkata-

700001;

2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Malda, Kalibari Railway Colony, Post Office- Jhaljhalia, District- Malda, Pin Code: 732102;

3. The Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Malda, Kalibari Railway Colony, Post Office- Jhaljhalia, District- Malda, Pin Code:

732102;

4. The Assistant Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Malda, Kalibari Railway Colony, Post Office- Jhaljhalia, District- Malda, Pin Code:

732102;

5. The Hand Writing Expert, Government Examiner for Questioned Documents, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi-

110011.

........Respondents For The Applicant(s): Md. Salauddin; Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. R. Halder, Counsel O R D E R Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):

“(a) A direction may be given upon the respondents, their officers, men and agents and each of them to issue appointment letter to the applicant to the post of Gr. III, Fitter, on the basis of the written examination held on 13.07.2014 and selection forthwith by quashing the purported letter being no. RRB/MLDT/Court case/OA442 of 2017 dated 19.7.2024 issued by the Astt. Secretary for Chairman, RRB, Malda;

b) A direction may be given upon the respondents, their officers, men and agents and each of them to show cause as to why they should not be directed to issue the appointment letter to the applicant being the selected candidate in the due process of law by quashing the purported letter being no. RRB/MLDT/Court case/OA442 of 2017 dated 19.7.2024 issued by the Astt. Secretary for Chairman, RRB, Malda;

c) A direction may be given to the respondents to verify the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) of the applicant by the expert of the Government so that the applicant may get proper relief in the instant case;

d) To pass such other or further order or orders as to this Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. The brief facts of the matter are as follows:-

The applicant had applied under Centralised Employment Notice No. 01/2014 published by the Railway Recruitment Board, Malda for the post of Technician Grade-III (Fitter C & W). A single stage written examination was held on 13.07.2014 for which the applicant had appeared at the Malda centre and was allotted Roll No. 23141004016993. He was declared successful in the written test and was called for document and candidature verification on

29.12.2015. At verification his photograph, signature and left thumb impression (LTI) were recorded.

During verification, the officials noted differences in handwriting and signatures between the application form and the entries on the OMR answer sheet, call letter and attendance sheet. The Board forwarded the papers to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) for expert opinion. The GEQD returned a report dated 24.09.2016 stating that the writings and signatures on the two sets of documents did not belong to the same hand.

Thereafter, on 20.10.2016 (Annexure A/5), the Board served a show-cause notice upon the applicant which reads as under:-

“You were called for document verification on 29/12/2015 at RRB/Malda's office for the post of Technician Gr-III/Fitter(C&W)., Cat No.65 of.CEN No: 01/2014 on the basis of the result of Written Examination held on 13/07/2014 During process of document and candidature verification, it has been noticed that there are differences in handwr