10.04.2025 (D/L-6) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.) W.P.C.T. 48 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Bharat Bhushan ...for the Petitioner Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi ...for the U.O.I. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was applicant before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1177 of 2023. The Original Application was disposed of allowing the petitioner certain liberty. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order in much as according to him it did not consider his claim raised in the Original Application. He thus filed a Review Application bearing R.A No. 00003 of 2024. The Review Application has also been rejected on 6th March, 2024. 3. The brief factual background is that the petitioner had participated in a process of recruitment for the Group- D post by the R.R.B. The same gave rise to hundreds of litigation. The petitioner also approached the Court earlier in separate proceeding/s. Ultimately, he was served with a information under the R.T.I on 1st March, 2023 which discloses that his candidature had not been considered as there was a mismatch in the 2 handwriting in the process of recruitment. Such discrepancy was discovered in a proceedings in the office of the Regional Recruitment Centre, Eastern Region, Kolkata on 6th August, 2013. When he was made available this information he assailed the same by filing O.A. No. 1177 of 2023. The Tribunal, however, has not proceeded to consider such challenge of the petitioner and has proceeded to dispose of the Original Application as if the petitioner was claiming only a consideration of his case by the respondent authorities. 4. The petitioner thus filed the Review Application alleging that the order of the Tribunal was suffering from an error apparent on the face of the record since the petitioner had not made any such prayer in the Original Application seeking consideration of his case by the authorities. The prayer made in the O.A. No. 1177 of 2023 reads as follows: “8. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR:- ................... (a) To quash and set aside the proceedings held on 06.08.2013 in the office of the RRC, Eastern Region, Kolkata provided to the applicant through R.T.I. reply on 01.03.2023. (b) Direction be issued to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata to match the hand writing of the applicant with the hand writing appearing in application from answer sheet, compared with the admitted anti litum mortem signature of the applicant and supply the report before this Hon’ble Tribunal at the cost of the applicant. (c) Direction to the respondents to issue the appointment letter after considering the report provided by the Central Forensic Science 3 Laboratory, Kolkata on and from ante date appointment from the date of joining of the candidates in the panel. (d) Direction to pay the notional pay from the date of ante dated joining as well as fixation of seniority in the respective cadre. (e) Production of the records of the instant case. (f) Any other or further order or orders be made and/or direction or directions given as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.” 5. The prayer made by the petitioner in the Original Application is self explanatory. There is no prayer made for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his claim. The Tribunal’s conclusion in this regard thus suffers from an error apparent for which no argument is required. In spite of such error apparent from the records itself the Review Application has also been rejected by the Tribunal on 6th March, 2024. We find that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the petitioner’s claim raised in the Original Application. Whether the claim will ultimately result in any benefit to the petitioner or not is an issue which we do not propose to comment upon at the present. 6. We set aside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in O.A. No. 1177 of 2023 and order dated 06.03.2024 passed in R.A. No. 00003 of 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. 7. Since the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal with reference to the prayer made in the Original Application, we consider it appropriate that 4 the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of O.A. No. 1177 of 2023 on its merits and in accordance with law. 8. The respondents may file their opposition within four weeks from date. We expect that the Tribunal thereafter will proceed to consider the Original Application expeditiously without any undue adjournments or unnecessary delay. 9. The writ petitioner stands allowed in the above terms. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)