JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment/order dated 9.7.2001 passed in O.A. No. 9", of 1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. 2. The O.A. was filed by the Petitioner and five others for a declaration that they were eligible to be appointed in Group-D posts in Indian Railways and also for a direction to the Respondents to appoint them in Group-D post from the date persons similarly situated like the applicants were absorbed and further for a direction to give them financial and service benefits. 3. Vide letter dated 9.1.1994, the applications from quasi administrative staff, i.e. staff employed in concerned Railway Institution, Staff Canteen, Cooperative Stores etc., who had completed five years of service as on 1.1.1994 were called for their appointment/ regularization in Group-D posts. It was provided in that letter that along with their applications candidates must furnish certain documents one of which as certificate in support of working number of days signed by respective Secretaries/Managers under whom they had worked. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that he was working as a commission bearer under the Divisional Manager's Staff Canteen at Khurda Road Division, Head Quarters with effect from 19.12.1985 to 7.9.1989 and from 7.9.89 to 31.3.90. In token of such engagement, he had filed certificate from the Secretary of the Divisional Railway Manager's Officer' Staff Canteen from time to time. The above circular dated 1.1.1994 was applicable to quasi administrative staff i.e. staff employed in the Railway Institutes, Staff Canteen Co-operative Stores etc. Vide letter dated 10.11.95, sixteen persons were called for a screening test on 28.11.95 but the Petitioner along with the other applicants in the said OA was not called for the same. Again in letter dated 30.11.95, applications were invited through proper channel by 28.12.1995. It was mentioned therein that those candidates, who had been called for screening test on 28.11.95 need not apply again. Thereafter 23 persons were called for screening test to be held on 8.4.1996. In this list of 23 persons, names of Petitioner and another were included but No. screening test was held on 8.4.1996. Subsequently vide notice dated 27.6.1997, eighteen persons were called for screening test to be held on 3.7.97. But in that letter also, the names of the present Petitioner and other applicants were not included. 5. In this list of 23 persons, names of Petitioner and another were included but No. screening test was held on 8.4.1996. Subsequently vide notice dated 27.6.1997, eighteen persons were called for screening test to be held on 3.7.97. But in that letter also, the names of the present Petitioner and other applicants were not included. 5. In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it was mentioned that only five applications were received from five applicants but No. application from applicant No. 5 in the O.A. was received and he filed a representation on 10.2.97 stating therein that he had submitted his application. The Tribunal considered the plea and the case of each of the applicants separately. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, case of the Petitioner was dealt with by the Tribunal which is reproduced as under: 8. So far as applicant No. 1 Baman Chandra Jena is concerned, it has been mentioned in this report that on verification of the proceedings register of the Cooperative Society it was seen that his name has been recorded in the proceedings register for the meetings held on 19.12.85,25.2.86 and 31.10.86 for engagement as commission bearer with some others name but the name has been recorded in a different handwriting and the name of this applicant seems to be interpolated. On verification of the attendance register maintained for casual staff it was seen that the applicant's name does not find place in the attendance register for the period. Secretary of the Canteen Shri J.Patnaik and Shri J.N.Champaty have issued the certificate for the period 19.12.85 to 31.3.90 and from 7.9.89 to 31.3.90 respectively. But Shri J.Patnaik was not holding any office for the period from 17.9.89 to 31.3.90. On the above grounds Respondents have held that the work certificate produced by applicant No. 1 is not a genuine. In view of the obvious discrepancies noted above, we find No. illegality in the Respondents holding that the work certificate submitted by applicant No. 1 is not genuine. 6. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has made scrutiny of the matter and has given its finding, therefore, it is not open for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. We have not also found any infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not a fit case for interference. We have not also found any infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not a fit case for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. Sanju Panda, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed