1 / 5 Ct. No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.D/L.29 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Saikat APPELLATE SIDE Mukherjee WP.CT/74/2026 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Defence and Production) Government of India, South Block, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011; 2. The Assurance, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Director General, Quality South Block, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011; 3. The Additional Director General, Quality Assurance (ARMTS), Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Defence Officers Complex, ‘B’ Block, Africa Avenue, P.O: Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023; 4. The Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Small Arms), Post-Ichapur-Nawabganj, District-North 24-Parganas, PIN-743144; 5. Senior Quality Assurance Officer (Small Arms), Post-Ichapur- Nawabganj, District-North 24-Parganas, PIN-743144; ]… Petitioners Versus Shri K. Venkat Rao, Son of Shri K. Kanta Rao, Aged about 34 Years, Residing at B.L. No.19, H/No.1/2, Momina Para, P.O.- Jagaddal, P.S.-Jagaddal, District-North 24-Parganas, PIN-743144. ]… Respondent 2 / 5 Appearance: Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty with Mr. Sukanta Banerjee, Advocates for the Petitioners Mr. Asit Kumar Manna with Mr. Niladri Saha, Advocates for the Respondent CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ. & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE : 22nd September, 2026. JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V Ghuge, CJ) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/00634/2015. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A., quashed the impugned order of termination dated 14.03.2015 and has directed the Employer to reinstate the Applicant in service on the basis of his examination result with all consequential benefits, within a period of four months. This order has not been implemented by the Employer till today. 3 / 5 3. Having considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and the record available, we find that a very short issue is involved in this matter. For the sake of brevity, we record that there is no objection as regards the selection process, the application of the Original Applicant for employment, his successful participation in the entire process of recruitment and his selection on being found suitable and eligible for appointment. He was appointed on the post of Examiner (Skill) on 18.03.2013. Just prior to the successful conclusion of his Probation Period, he was terminated on 14.03.2015 only on the ground that at the time of his selection, he had tendered a provisional experience certificate and at the time of appointment he had tendered an original certificate. He did not have the requisite qualifications/experience. 4. The record reveals that there is no dispute as regards the authenticity of the certificates tendered by the Applicant. The grievance of the Employer is that the Applicant did not possess the requisite qualification since he had submitted a provisional ITI certificate issued on 20.11.2008. However, the ITI certificate is not doubted since the Applicant had tendered the provisional certificate. The experience of the Applicant was doubted because the experience certificate did not specify the salary drawn. 4 / 5 5. We find from the experience certificate that, the Applicant was working in a Factory in the Mechanic Department as a Fitter, for three years from 01.04.2010 to 01.05.2012. The required experience mentioned in the advertisement was of only 1 year. His last drawn fortnight salary was Rs.1550/-. This certificate mentioning his salary was produced on 18.03.2015 after the termination of the Applicant. Nevertheless, this certificate is almost identical to the certificate dated 07.06.2012, that he had submitted at the time of applying for the post, except that it did not mention his salary. 6. We find from the record that the certificate dated 18.03.2015 was issued by the same factory in which the Applicant was working as a Fitter, and is not contradictory to the certificate dated 07.06.2012. From no angle, can the said certificate dated 07.06.2012 be said to be provisional. It is only because the Employer did not mention the salary of the Applicant in the said certificate, that the Employer doubted the Applicant. This issue was overcome by mentioning of the salary drawn fortnightly by the same factory by its certificate dated 18.03.2015. We find that the non-mentioning of the salary in the experience certificate is not so significant so as to result in the termination of the Applicant. So also, the advertisement never demanded that the applying candidates should disclose their salaries in their experience certificates. These 5 / 5 factors have been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal vide the impugned Judgment. 7. In view of the above, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error. The impugned Judgment cannot be faulted. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge) Chief Justice