A representation challenging appointment must be considered jointly by the Administration and UPSC through a reasoned order.

The applicant, who had worked as an Associate Professor (contractual) at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Technology (DBRAIT), applied for the post of Professor (Electronics & Communication Engineering) pursuant to UPSC Advertisement No. 09/2024.

Although shortlisted and interviewed, he was not selected.

The UPSC recommended the private respondent, Dr. (Ms.) Sanmukh Kaur, for appointment, and the Andaman & Nicobar Administration subsequently appointed her as Professor on 20 June 2025 and granted her current duty charge as Principal of DBRAIT on 16 July 2025.

The applicant alleged irregularities and discrepancies in the private respondent’s educational, experience and character certificates.

He submitted a representation to the Chairman of the UPSC on 27 February 2026, with copies to the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, seeking verification of her credentials.

The representation had not been considered or answered when the Original Application was filed.

The Administration challenged the application on limitation and locus standi grounds, while the UPSC maintained that the selection had followed due procedure and that document verification had been entrusted to the Administration.

1. Whether the applicant’s representation alleging irregularities in the private respondent’s educational and experience credentials ought to be considered by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration in consultation with the UPSC.

2. Whether the private respondent’s UPSC recommendation, appointment as Professor, and subsequent grant of current duty charge as Principal should be quashed on the grounds raised by the applicant.

3. Whether the Original Application was barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable for want of locus standi.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the procedural principle that a representation raising specific grievances concerning a public appointment should be considered by the competent authorities and decided through a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the appointment, no substantive statutory provision, recruitment rule, AICTE regulation, or judicial precedent was adjudicated or applied to determine the private respondent’s eligibility.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had raised specific grievances regarding the private respondent’s credentials and that his representation dated 27 February 2026 remained unanswered by both the Administration and the UPSC.

Although the respondents disputed limitation, locus standi and the authenticity of the documents, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to determine those issues or the merits of the alleged irregularities at the admission stage.

Instead, it directed the competent authority to examine the representation in consultation with the UPSC and to provide a reasoned decision.

The direction preserved the applicant’s grievance for administrative consideration without expressing any opinion on the validity of the appointment or the allegations against the private respondent.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration was directed to consider the applicant’s representation, treating the Original Application as part of it, in consultation with the UPSC, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the case.

No order as to costs was made.