Authorities directed to decide pending representations on appointment claim in accordance with law.

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Transport Sub-Inspector (Technical) pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission’s advertisement dated 13 April 2022 and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Scheduled Tribe waiting list.

He had earlier challenged the appointment of other candidates in WPS No. 5206 of 2023, but that petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue his claim before the State Government.

Subsequently, the appointments of the selected candidates were cancelled on 19 June 2024 for failure to satisfy the mandatory physical eligibility requirements.

The cancellation was upheld in WPS Nos. 3586 of 2024 and 3602 of 2024, and thereafter in Writ Appeal No. 263 of 2026.

Claiming appointment against the resultant vacancies, the petitioner submitted representations dated 14 February 2026 and 20 July 2026, which remained undecided.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representations seeking appointment to the post of Transport Sub-Inspector (Technical) against the resultant vacancy.

Whether such consideration should be made in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

The Court applied the administrative law principle that a competent public authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law when the issue falls within its administrative domain.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to appointment, but confined the relief to a direction for consideration of the representations by the competent authorities.

The Court noted that the petitioner claimed appointment on the basis of his position in the ST waiting list and the cancellation of the appointments of candidates who allegedly failed to meet the prescribed physical eligibility requirements.

Since the petitioner’s representations seeking appointment against the resultant vacancy were stated to be pending, and the State counsel undertook that they would be considered if still pending, the Court found it appropriate to grant limited procedural relief rather than decide the merits of the appointment claim.

Accordingly, the authorities were directed to examine the representations and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The representations were to be considered preferably within 50 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court did not grant a direct appointment order or determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to appointment.