JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, C.J. - This judgment shall dispose of 2(two) writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No.2044/2017 (Union of India, represented by General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati & 3 other functionaries of the said establishment -Vs- Ashim Bora, Kartick Chandra Dey, Prema Kanta Hazarika and Secretary, N.F. Railway Employee''s Consumer Co-operative Society Limited) and WP(C) No.1140/2018 (Debajit Hazarika, Bimal Saikia, Gayan Chandra Bora & Jyoti Prasad Baruah -Vs- Union of India, represented by General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati & 4 other functionaries of the Railways). wxyz Both the petitions are directed against common order dated 10.08.2016 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench while dealing with O.A. No.040/00265/2014 (Ashim Bora & 7 Ors. -Vs- Union of India, through General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon & 4 Ors.). zyxw wxyz For reference to record, we are referring to the pleadings in WP(C) No.2044/2017 (supra). zyxw wxyz In WP(C) No.2044/2017, Railways is represented by Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate. zyxw wxyz In WP(C) No.1140/2018, Railways is represented by Mr. B. Sharma, Advocate. zyxw 2. The claim of all the original applicants was common. All the original applicants were aggrieved by action of Northeast Frontier Railway in not absorbing the applicants in Group-D posts of Railways, hence, a common application was filed by 8(eight) persons. wxyz The case of Ashim Bora, Kartick Chandra Dey and Prema Kanta Hazarika [respondents in WP(C) No.2044/2017] was found to be different and, therefore, Original Application filed on their behalf was allowed in limited terms vide the impugned order. zyxw wxyz So far as claim of writ petitioners, 4(four) in number, of WP(C) No.1140/2018 is concerned, their claim has been rejected vide the impugned order. zyxw 3. We shall, at the first instance, deal with WP(C) No.2044/2017. A reference to common documents is required, therefore, reference is being made to the documents in extenso. 4. It appears that the original applicants, 8(eight) in number, pleaded that they were engaged vide the different letters of engagement/appointment by Secretary, Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society, Chaparmukh, for selling rice, sugar, kerosene oil, mustard oil, atta, masoor dal, etc. The Ministry of Railways has been issuing Circulars from time to time for absorption of employees serving Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society also, popularly known as serving in staff working in quasi administrative offices or organisations connected with the Railways. 5. Learned counsel for the Railways, namely, Mr. The Ministry of Railways has been issuing Circulars from time to time for absorption of employees serving Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society also, popularly known as serving in staff working in quasi administrative offices or organisations connected with the Railways. 5. Learned counsel for the Railways, namely, Mr. H.K. Das, has drawn attention of the Court towards Circular dated 11.06.1997 to contend that it was decided by the Railway Board, in supersession of letter dated 26.08.1977 that staff working in quasi administrative offices or organizations connected with Railways shall henceforth have to compete along with other eligible candidates for recruitment to the Railway service as and when Notification for recruitment to posts suiting their qualification, etc., are issued. 6. It has been pointed out that a demand was raised by recognized staff federations for amendment of the conditions and, therefore, Railway Circular dated 30.05.2000 was issued with the condition that as a one-time relaxation, the Railways may consider absorption of only those staff of quasi administrative offices/ organizations, who were on roll continuously for a period of at least 3(three) years as on 10.06.1997, and are still on roll, subject to fulfilment of prescribed educational qualification required for recruitment to Group-D posts. 7. Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner/Railways has further stated that vide the Circular dated 03.05.2006, on reconsideration of the matter, it was decided that the Railways may consider absorption of that staff of quasi administrative office/organisation, who were on roll as on 10.06.1997, and are still on roll, subject to fulfilment of other conditions as laid down in Board''s letter. 8. It has been pointed out by Mr. H.K. Das that vide the letter dated 16.05.2007, names of all the 8(eight) original applicants were forwarded in the capacity of staff working in quasi administrative office/organisation in Group-D posts of the Railways. All the 8(eight) persons were shown to have been appointed during the period 1993 till 1997, on various dates. All the applicants were shown to have attained age of majority, viz. over 18(eighteen) years. wxyz Learned counsel for the petitioner/Railways has pointed out that verification of records was conducted under letter dated 27.11.2009. As per the enquiry/verification report, in the course of verification, the Secretary of Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society was asked to produce the attendance register of the staff (the original applicants) from the dates of their engagement. over 18(eighteen) years. wxyz Learned counsel for the petitioner/Railways has pointed out that verification of records was conducted under letter dated 27.11.2009. As per the enquiry/verification report, in the course of verification, the Secretary of Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society was asked to produce the attendance register of the staff (the original applicants) from the dates of their engagement. The Secretary failed to submit or produce the same. zyxw wxyz a) The enquiry/verification report further indicates that only one attendance register was found available with the Secretary from 2004 to February, 2007, wherein attendance of the staff has been marked as "P" against each, instead of signature of the workers. The attendance register was found without having any signature of the Secretary or Treasurer at the bottom of the pages. zyxw wxyz b) On verification of Payment Register also, it was found that the register is without having any counter sign of the Treasurer. Date of engagement and date of payment also did not tally. The amount paid was shown as it had been paid yearly basis as honorarium but not as monthly salary. It indicated that the workers were working on honorary basis and not as regular staff. zyxw wxyz c) The verification report further indicates that for engagement of the 8(eight) workers/original applicants, the co-operative authority failed to submit any minutes register, office copies of engagement letter or copy of any resolution in regard to their engagements. zyxw wxyz d) The verification report further reflects that Secretary stated that all the records had been destroyed in the floods, however, he was preparing one attendance register from November, 1993 by indicating as "P" against the names of each worker. zyxw wxyz e) The enquiry authority/verification authority has recorded that it cannot be understood as to how the Secretary could recall from his memory record of 15(fifteen) years back. The conclusion drawn on verification/enquiry report dated 30.11.2009 is required to be considered in exact terms. The conclusion reads as under:- zyxw wxyz "Conclusion:- Without having any proper document and Secy. failed to produce the relevant vital documents as mentioned above in connection with the engagement of the workers so it can not possible to certify that the case is genuine." zyxw 9. The conclusion reads as under:- zyxw wxyz "Conclusion:- Without having any proper document and Secy. failed to produce the relevant vital documents as mentioned above in connection with the engagement of the workers so it can not possible to certify that the case is genuine." zyxw 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Railways in WP(C) No.2044/2017 (supra) has further buttressed his argument by pointing towards list of eligible candidates working in quasi administrative offices/organisations for absorption in Group-D posts as forwarded with communication dated 04.06.2008. It has been pointed out, and for the right reason, that the names of 8(eight) original applicants does not find mention in the said list. From the document it has been projected that in case the original applicants were employees in the quasi administrative offices, their names would have been reflected in the list accompanying Memo dated 04.06.2008. This indicated that the recommendation made vide letter dated 16.05.2007 was a result of manipulation. wxyz It has been argued that de hors the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, the Administrative Tribunal has directed the petitioner/ Railways to consider the case of the respondents, namely, Ashim Bora, Kartick Chandra Dey and Prema Kanta Hazarika, for absorption in Group-D category service in the Railways. It has been pleaded that the said direction has been issued merely considering their dates of birth. The only criteria taken into account is that they had attained age of majority. zyxw 10. Contention of learned counsel for the 3(three) private respondents in WP(C) No.2044/2017 is that communication dated 04.06.2008 (supra) is de hors the controversy in so much as the names of the applicants had already been forwarded along with communication dated 16.05.2007 (supra). Under the circumstances, it has been pleaded that no relevance can be attached to Memo dated 04.06.2008 (supra). 11. Learned counsel for the respondents in the alternative has also contended that it was for the Secretary to forward the names of the original applicants in the list sent on 04.06.2008. The applicants cannot be held at fault and cannot be non-suited on that ground. 12. We have questioned learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the Secretary had any malafide intentions on account of which names of original applicants were not recommended vide list dated 04.06.2008; and if so why such malafide intentions have not been ascribed against the Secretary. 12. We have questioned learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the Secretary had any malafide intentions on account of which names of original applicants were not recommended vide list dated 04.06.2008; and if so why such malafide intentions have not been ascribed against the Secretary. Learned counsel, however, has no response to give to the said query. 13. We have considered the contentions of both the sides in WP(C) No.2044/2017. 14. In regard to the scope of judicial review of administrative action by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, or by a Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court or Administrative Tribunal is limited and confines to see whether such administrative action is based on illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationality. The Court would interfere if the decision was one that is contrary to law; or relevant factors were not considered; or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. 15. To judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory discretion, it is to be found out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision maker could, on the material before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The Court would certainly consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bonafide. The Court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. wxyz The Court would not, however, go into correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him. The Court in such circumstances is not required to substitute its own decision for the decision of the administrator. zyxw 16. From the above, it becomes evident that the Courts/Tribunal will only play a secondary role while the primary judgment as to the reasonableness will remain with the executive or the administrative authority. The Court would always be slow to interfere with the administrative functions, if the decision of the administrator is not visited by one of the vices narrated earlier. wxyz The Court would certainly interfere if there is manifest error in exercise of power or exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. zyxw 17. The Court would always be slow to interfere with the administrative functions, if the decision of the administrator is not visited by one of the vices narrated earlier. wxyz The Court would certainly interfere if there is manifest error in exercise of power or exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. zyxw 17. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review only on the ground of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. wxyz Judicial review is directed not against the decision but the decision making process. zyxw 18. Ordinarily the Court would not interfere on mere errors, but only palpably arbitrary decisions. The Courts ordinarily would not interfere with the recommendations of any expert body which are accepted by the Government, unless it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provision of the law. wxyz The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority, entering the arena of disputed facts and figures to opine with regard to the manner in which the authority ought to have proceeded, without finding any violation of rules or procedure. zyxw 19. The function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the Courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts. wxyz The High Court/Tribunal would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts. wxyz The High Court/Tribunal would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty. zyxw wxyz The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. zyxw wxyz If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record. zyxw wxyz If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the Writ Court/Tribunal. zyxw wxyz However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. zyxw wxyz [Vide the judgments zyxw wxyz 1. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc. -Vs- Union of India Etc., (1977) 3 SCC 592 ; zyxw wxyz 2. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. -Vs- RBI [ Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. -Vs- RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343 ] (SCC p. 375, para 31); zyxw wxyz 3. Union of India & another -Vs- G. Ganayutham (Supreme Court, 27.08.1997), zyxw wxyz 4. Nalini and 3 others -Vs- The Governor, State of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court, 2000 1 CTC 28 , 25 November, 1999 ; zyxw wxyz 5. Om Kumar and ors. -Vs- Union of India (Special Leave Petition (civil) 21000 of 1993, 17 November, 2000; zyxw wxyz 6. Indian Railway Construction Co. -Vs- Ajay Kumar [Appeal (civil) 3299 of 2000, 27th February, 2003]; zyxw wxyz 7. Om Kumar and ors. -Vs- Union of India (Special Leave Petition (civil) 21000 of 1993, 17 November, 2000; zyxw wxyz 6. Indian Railway Construction Co. -Vs- Ajay Kumar [Appeal (civil) 3299 of 2000, 27th February, 2003]; zyxw wxyz 7. Delhi Development Authority -Vs- M/s UEE Electricals Engg. Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 213 ; zyxw wxyz 8. B.P. Singhal -Vs- Union of India & another, {Writ Petition (Civil) No.296 of 2004, decided on 7 May, 2010; zyxw wxyz 9. Sarvepalli Ramaiah -Vs- The District Collector, Chittor Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No.7461 of 2009, decided on 14.03.2019 zyxw wxyz 10. Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association -Vs- State of Telangana,2019 SCCOnlineSC 805 , decided on 01.07.2019; zyxw wxyz 11. West Bengal Central School Service Commission & ors. -Vs- Abdul Halim and Ors.,2019 SCCOnLineSC 902 (Civil Appeal No.5824 of 2019), decided on 24.07.2019; zyxw wxyz 12. Municipal Corporation Neemuch -Vs- Mahadeo Real Estate, Civil Appeal Nos.73197320 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.172173 of 2019, decided on 17 September, 2019.] zyxw wxyz (Emphasised by us) zyxw 20. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the file, it becomes evident that the list of staff working in quasi administrative office for absorption was forwarded vide the communication dated 16.05.2007 (supra). The said list was subjected to verification. On verification/enquiry, it was found that the said 8(eight) persons had not served as staff in quasi administrative office. In reference to relevant records and for acceptable reasons on actionable evidence, it has been concluded upon enquiry that there was no record of service by the original applicants available with Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society. The employer having conducted enquiry on relevant basis and the employer having come to a conclusion that there was no relevant record indicating service by the original applicants, in the considered opinion of the Court, the Central Administrative Tribunal could not have ruled otherwise as if it were an appellate authority. The Administrative Tribunal was only required to see the decision making process, and could not have gone into the nitty gritties of other facts. wxyz We rather find that the Tribunal has only given importance to the age of the original applicants. The respondents in WP(C) No.2044/2017, in the perception of the Tribunal, were found to have attained age of majority at the time of their engagement, hence, are being given relief. wxyz We rather find that the Tribunal has only given importance to the age of the original applicants. The respondents in WP(C) No.2044/2017, in the perception of the Tribunal, were found to have attained age of majority at the time of their engagement, hence, are being given relief. The other original applicants/petitioners in WP(C) No.1140/2018, in the perception of the Tribunal, have been found to be minors at the time of engagement, therefore, have been non-suited. zyxw wxyz In the considered opinion of this Court, due regard has not been given to the enquiry/verification report; to the fact that in the list of eligible candidates working in quasi administrative offices/organizations forwarded with communication dated 04.06.2008, none of the original applicants'' names find mention, which is indicative of the fact that they were not employees of such organisation. zyxw wxyz In view of the above, we find that the relevant issues/matters/documents having not been given due credence, the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal is rendered unreasonable and illegal. zyxw wxyz Illegality cannot be traced on the part of the Railways in the decision making process because the Railways did not allow absorption of the original applicants on the basis of verification/enquiry report, which this Court considers as a relevant process and procedure followed by the Railways. zyxw 21. It is evident that disputed questions of facts were involved, however, the Tribunal appears to have assumed onto itself the power to enquire. wxyz In view of above, it is evident that the Tribunal has travelled much beyond the scope of judicial review as defined by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India through various judgments ranging from 1977 till 2019, to which reference in extenso has been made hereinabove. zyxw 22. The claim of the petitioners of WP(C) No.1140/2018 to absorption has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the said writ petitioners/original applicants were minors at the point in time when they were allegedly engaged. In such circumstances, their very engagement was in contravention of the Act of 1986. 23. So far as the fact that the said persons were minors at the time of engagement is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners admits that as per the dates of birth given in Paragraph 4.4 of the Original Application itself, the said writ petitioners/original applicants had not attained age of majority. 23. So far as the fact that the said persons were minors at the time of engagement is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners admits that as per the dates of birth given in Paragraph 4.4 of the Original Application itself, the said writ petitioners/original applicants had not attained age of majority. The contention, however, is that their work was not prohibited under the Act of 1986. 24. So far as WP(C) No.1140/2018 is concerned, Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A.K. Singha, has vehemently argued that the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short, "Act of 1986") does not prohibit a child from working in establishments such as quasi administrative offices/ organizations in which writ petitioners of WP(C) No.1140/2018 (supra) were serving. In this regard, a reference has been made to Schedule Part A prepared under Section 3 of the said Act of 1986 to say that the writ petitioners of WP(C) No.1140/2018 could not have been non-suited only because they had not attained age of majority on the date of their engagement. It has been argued that the nature of establishment where the said writ petitioners were working did not prohibit them from working although they were minors. 25. It has been vehemently contended that Consumer Co-operative Societies have not been included in Part A of the Schedule nor the workplace where the writ petitioners were serving would constitute "workshop" as set forth in Part B of the Schedule framed under the Act of 1986. 26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention. As per the age given in Paragraph 4.4 of the Original Application, at the time of engagement, Debajit Hazarika would have been 12 years and 8 months old, approximately; Bimal Saikia would have been 17 years and 1 month old, approximately; Gayan Chandra Bora would have been aged about 13 years 8 months and 22 days old and Jyoti Prasad Baruah would have been about 9 years 8 months and 15 days old. wxyz So far as the plea of the respondent/Railways is concerned, it has been pleaded that no such plea was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petitioners are precluded from raising that plea. wxyz So far as the plea of the respondent/Railways is concerned, it has been pleaded that no such plea was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petitioners are precluded from raising that plea. In any case, the Railways have developed a case to the effect that the writ petitioners were engaged in quasi administrative staff of Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society for selling of rice, sugar, kerosene oil, mustard oil, atta, masoor dal, etc. zyxw wxyz In Schedule Part A to the Act of 1986, at serial No.15, it is provided "Employment of children in dhabas (road side eateries), restaurants, hotels, motels, tea shops, resorts, spas or other recreational centres." Serial No.3 of Schedule Part A is related to "Work in a catering establishment at a railway station, involving the movement of a vendor or any other employee of the establishment from one platform to another or into or out of a moving train". zyxw wxyz It has been contended that the establishment of the erstwhile employer society would fall under entry at Serial No.15; or Serial No.3 (supra), hence the said writ petitioners/original applicants while minors were working in prohibited environment. Considering the Schedule also, we find that the service taken from the petitioners might have been prohibited. zyxw wxyz Be that as it may, having referred to the dates of birth given in the Original Application, as noticed above, we have also referred to their dates of birth given in the letter of recommendation dated 16.05.2007 by the Welfare Officer. Date of birth of Debajit Hazarika has been given as 01.05.1977. Date of birth of Bimal Saikia has been given as 31.12.1977. However, date of appointment is different, viz. 23.02.1996. The date of birth of Gayan Chandra Bora in the recommendation is 01.06.1975. The date of birth of Jyoti Prasad Baruah is 27.04.1979. It is, therefore, evident that the record appears to have been manipulated at the time of making recommendation of the petitioners. Their dates of birth have been differently given so as to project them as having attained age of majority as would be evident from column of "age" as given in the said document. zyxw 27. It is, therefore, evident that the record appears to have been manipulated at the time of making recommendation of the petitioners. Their dates of birth have been differently given so as to project them as having attained age of majority as would be evident from column of "age" as given in the said document. zyxw 27. When we compare the dates of birth/ages as given in the Original Application by the writ petitioners of WP(C) No.1140/2018 with the dates of birth given in recommendation for their absorption dated 16.05.2007, it becomes clearly evident that the said dates are wholly different. An attempt has been made for absorption of the said writ petitioners/ original applicants vide the recommendation dated 16.05.2007 by showing them as having attained age of majority. Such admitted discrepancy in documents in the same context clearly establishes manipulation. This fortifies our belief that the claim of the original applicants is based on fabricated facts to claim absorption in regular service. 28. Considering the said aspect of the matter also, we are convinced that the verification report/enquiry report is based on good reasons and relates to the relevant actionable evidence. 29. In W(C) No.1140/2018 also, we find that the Administrative Tribunal has travelled beyond its jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative action. 30. We have also taken notice of the fact that the claim of all the 8(eight) original applicants has been dealt with in Paragraphs 13 to 15 of the impugned order. The said Paragraphs read as under:- wxyz "13. The applicant nos.3, 5, 6, 7 & 8, namely, S/Shri Suraj Choudhury, Debojit Hazarika, Bimal Saikia, Gyan Chandra Borah and Jyoti Prasad Barua were under age on the date of appointment. The same is not disputed. Therefore, their appointments become illegal. This court has no sympathy with any acts of the employer who are not sensitive to the legal provisions with regard to prohibition of appointment of child labour. Therefore, with regard to applicant nos.3, 5, 6, 7 & 8, the OA is dismissed. zyxw wxyz 14. The same is not disputed. Therefore, their appointments become illegal. This court has no sympathy with any acts of the employer who are not sensitive to the legal provisions with regard to prohibition of appointment of child labour. Therefore, with regard to applicant nos.3, 5, 6, 7 & 8, the OA is dismissed. zyxw wxyz 14. From the undisputed fact that S/Shri Suraj Choudhury, Debojit Hazarika, Bimal Saikia, Gyan Chandra Borah and Jyoti Prasad Barua were appointed when they were under aged, it can be concluded that had the Secretary of the Society (respondent no.5) manipulated the records keeping in view the relaxation provided by the Railway Board circular dated 26.02.2010, then, he would not have chosen the date of appointment and issued fabricated appointment letters much prior to the relevant date 10.06.1997, therefore, the contention of the respondents that the appointment of the applicants is based on fabricated documents is prima facie looks far fetched. zyxw wxyz 15. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that in the list of 1999 their names did not appear because of the reason that they were short of 3 years of service is found to have merit and logic. Accordingly, the case of applicant nos.1, 2 & 4, namely S/Shri Ashim Bora (date of birth 23.10.1967; date of appointment 05.01.1997), Kartik Chandra Dey (date of birth 03.02.1975; date of appointment 20.11.1993) and Prema Kanta Hazarika (date of birth 30.11.1975; date of appointment 12.03.1994) having found merit, is allowed if they fulfil the requirement of educational qualification like the cases of at sl. No.9 Sri Sankar Dey, sl. No.10 Sri Dipak Biswas and sl. No.11 Sri Rajib Bora figured in letter no.E/227/144/Pt. XIV(C)Quasi (Loose) dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure-11 of the OA) who were also working in Railway Consumer Co-operative Society, Chaparmukh, have been absorbed in Group D post in railways in 2004. Accordingly, respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant nos.1, 2 7 4 for absorption in Group D category service in the railways subject to fulfilment of prescribed educational qualification and as per instruction of the Railway Board with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order." zyxw 31. The Administrative Tribunal has not dealt with the verification/enquiry report at all. Reference has not been made to various letters of recommendations. The Administrative Tribunal has not dealt with the verification/enquiry report at all. Reference has not been made to various letters of recommendations. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal is rendered without reasons and without consideration of the relevant evidences and facts. 32. For all the reasons given above, we find merit in WP(C) No.2044/2017, which accordingly is allowed. To the extent the impugned order gives relief to private respondent Nos.1 to 3, the impugned order is hereby quashed. 33. So far as WP(C) No.1140/2018 is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order so far as it concerns the said writ petitioners, the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal is upheld, although for other reasons given herein above.