JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 1. The subject controversy relates to a selection process held by the Railway Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as RRB) in terms of Employment Notice dated July 28, 2003. The respondents before us were successful candidates who were selected for the post along with others. To be precise, altogether one thousand six hundred fifty one candidates were selected for appointment. The RRB however withheld appointment in respect of five hundred ninety three candidates on the ground of impersonation. Subsequently, one twenty four candidates were given appointment leaving four hundred sixty nine candidates. The respondents being five in number are in the batch of four hundred sixty nine candidates. It was alleged that they did not sit for the examination and someone else sat for the examination impersonating the respondents. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an application before the Tribunal being O.A. No. 817 of 2007 that the RRB should include the above respondents in the panel of successful candidates. They also relied upon the orders of the Tribunal passed in various similar cases. The Tribunal disposed of the application vide order dated May 12, 2009 appearing at page 83-86 of the petition. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice the applicant should be given an opportunity of hearing by the respondents as also an opportunity to cross-examine the hand-writing expert on the basis of whose report the petitioners were removed from the panel of the successful candidates. The Tribunal directed the authority to give them a fresh hearing coupled with a chance to cross-examine the handwriting expert. The Tribunal also directed the authority to give a clear finding by passing a speaking order. The RRB filed an application for review. The Tribunal vide order dated November 5, 2009 appearing at pages 101-103 of the petition dismissed the same. While doing so, the Tribunal rejected the contention of RRB that the applicants had appeared in a fresh selection process where they could not qualify. This fact was suppressed while filing O.A. No. 817 of 2007. The Tribunal felt that since the applicants had been held guilty of misconduct of impersonation they should be given opportunity to cross-examine the hand-writing expert. 2. Being aggrieved, RRB approached this Court by filing W.P.C.T. 25 of 2010. This fact was suppressed while filing O.A. No. 817 of 2007. The Tribunal felt that since the applicants had been held guilty of misconduct of impersonation they should be given opportunity to cross-examine the hand-writing expert. 2. Being aggrieved, RRB approached this Court by filing W.P.C.T. 25 of 2010. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated February 26, 2010 dismissed the writ petition by holding that Tribunal did not commit any error. The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the Tribunal dated May 12, 2009. RRB approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition by extending the time to comply with the order of the Tribunal till August 31, 2010. RRB did not comply with the order resulting in a contempt proceeding. The Tribunal vide order dated November 16, 2010 asked the contemnor to be present in Court. The Tribunal ultimately disposed of the contempt proceeding vide order dated March 18, 2011 appearing at page 533 of the petition which became the subject matter of the present application. RRB in their application contended that in terms of the order of the Apex court they passed a reasoned order after giving personal hearing to the applicants. However, the hand-writing expert did not turn up. Hence, the second part of the order could not be complied with. RRB contended that they had no control over the experts. After hearing the rival contentions, the Tribunal observed that since the RRB could not produce the hand-writing expert they must issue suitable direction with regard to appointment of the applicants. The Tribunal however observed that the applicants would not be entitled to back wages and their seniority would be counted from the day when they would join their post. 3. Being aggrieved, RRB filed the instant application which was heard by us on the above mentioned dates. 4. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that assuming the petitioner committed contempt of Court the Tribunal erred in passing a mandatory order of appointment which was outside the scope of a contempt proceeding. He relied upon the decision in the case of Ranjugopal Mukherjee vs. Ramapada Mahalder reported in 1991 Volume-II Calcutta Law Times Page-366. On merits, Mr. Banerjee contended that the RRB tried their level best to persuade the hand-writing expert to appear for cross-examination. However, such repeated attempts failed. He relied upon the decision in the case of Ranjugopal Mukherjee vs. Ramapada Mahalder reported in 1991 Volume-II Calcutta Law Times Page-366. On merits, Mr. Banerjee contended that the RRB tried their level best to persuade the hand-writing expert to appear for cross-examination. However, such repeated attempts failed. He also produced the records that would show that after expiry of the period fixed by the Apex Court the concerned hand-writing expert wrote the letter to RRB making a tall claim on account of his fees and cost to attend the hearing. 5. Opposing the application, Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that once the order of the Tribunal reached finality at the Apex Court stage no option was left open to the Tribunal but to seek enforcement of their order. RRB expressly made it clear that they would not be in a position to produce the hand-writing experts. Hence, as a consequence the Tribunal directed the appointment to be given that was well within the scope of contempt proceeding. 6. Mr. Chakrabarty further contended that the present application itself was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act. According to him, since the power of the High Court was withdrawn and given to the Tribunal as per provisions of Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act the Tribunal was competent to pass any appropriate order to seek compliance of their order. In case, any party felt aggrieved the remedy would lie to the Apex Court by way of appeal. The present application would not be maintainable. He relied on the decision in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in 2001 Volume-I Supreme Court Cases Page-516 and in the case of Ashoke Kumar Rai vs. Ashoke Arora & Another reported in 1996 Calcutta Weekly Notes Page-278. 7. The Tribunal directed the Board to pass a reasoned order considering the factual matrix after giving hearing to the applicants. Accordingly, hearing was given and a reasoned order was passed. However, the other part of the order, granting opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine the handwriting expert, could not be complied due to non-availability of handwriting expert. 7. The Tribunal directed the Board to pass a reasoned order considering the factual matrix after giving hearing to the applicants. Accordingly, hearing was given and a reasoned order was passed. However, the other part of the order, granting opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine the handwriting expert, could not be complied due to non-availability of handwriting expert. If we closely look to the order of the Tribunal, we would find that the Tribunal did not contemplate and/or clarify as to what would happen in case of handwriting expert being not available or not produced for cross-examination. In such event, it was not proper for the Tribunal to direct appointment to be given. The Tribunal should have pulled up the administration who failed to approach the Tribunal with a miscellaneous application, inter alia, praying for appropriate modification on that score. The Board simply prayed for an extension, however, did not inform the Tribunal about such difficulty to have appropriate clarification. In our view, the proper course would be to send the answer scripts to a Government agency having expertise to undertake examination of the documents and then rely upon the report of such Government agency to come to a definite conclusion about the selection process before giving a direct mandate on the Board to give appointment, particularly when the nature of the allegations were serious and grave. 8. Mr. Chakraborty contended before us that the appeal would directly lie to the Apex Court as against the order impugned. To support such contention, he relied on the decision of T. Sudhakar Prasad (Supra). After considering the decision in the case of L. Chandra Kumar reported in 1997 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page-261, the Apex Court held that in case of any punishment imposed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Section 17 of the Tribunal Act appeal would lie before the Apex Court. 9. We have carefully examined the order impugned herein. It was not a punishment imposed by the Tribunal. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon Section 19 of the said Act of 1971 to say that any order arising out of a contempt proceeding would be an order within the meaning of Section 19 and would be appealable only before the Apex Court. We cannot put our seal of approval on such concept. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon Section 19 of the said Act of 1971 to say that any order arising out of a contempt proceeding would be an order within the meaning of Section 19 and would be appealable only before the Apex Court. We cannot put our seal of approval on such concept. An order has to be looked into to find out its true purport. The present order could not be said to be an order passed punishing the contemnor in contempt. In fact, direction was issued upon the Board to issue letter of appointment. As has been held by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ashoke Kumar Rai (Supra), the final order holding the contemnor guilty of contempt and punishing them therefor, would certainly be appealable before the Apex Court, not the order passed in excess of jurisdiction. 10. Coming to the factual matrix, we find that out of 1651 (one thousand six hundred fifty one) candidates, only 469 (four hundred sixty nine) candidates were ultimately debarred on the ground of impersonation. Our conscience pricks when we are approached with a prayer for giving support to the order of the Tribunal directing letters of appointment to be issued to them without having a proper verification. The Tribunal was right in asking the handwriting expert to appear so that he could be cross-examined. The concerned handwriting expert (a private individual), as we find from the records produced before us, was making a tall claim on account of expenses to appear before the Tribunal. He was possibly taking advantage of the situation. In such event, the proper course would have been to ask any Government agency to re-verify those answer scripts so that an independent view is achieved on the issue. We cannot be oblivion to the fact that a selectee whose name appeared in the select list could not get an indefeasible right to get an appointment. The authority was within their right to verify the credentials of the candidate to find out whether the said person was the real person who participated in the selection process. The Tribunal, in our view, possibly overlooked this aspect. 11. The Tribunal application succeeds in part. The order of the Tribunal impugned herein is set aside. The authority was within their right to verify the credentials of the candidate to find out whether the said person was the real person who participated in the selection process. The Tribunal, in our view, possibly overlooked this aspect. 11. The Tribunal application succeeds in part. The order of the Tribunal impugned herein is set aside. The reasoned order passed by the authority impugned in the contempt proceeding is also quashed as it was done without giving opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine the handwriting expert. 12. The Tribunal is requested to get the concerned examination records pertaining to the applicants, examined by any Government agency of its choice and consider their report before issuing any direction on the respondent Board with regard to appointment of the applicants. With these observations, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. We would expect the Tribunal to give some priority and resolve the issue finally at an early date. 13. The W.P.C.T. No.156 of 2011 is disposed of without any order as to costs. 14. Urgent Photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J. I agree.