Authorities mandated to decide representations via reasoned orders regarding candidate category changes from EWS to General.

The applicant participated in a recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).

Despite securing 126.68356 marks and claiming eligibility under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, his final scorecard dated 17.02.2026 reflected his category as ‘General’.

Consequently, his name was excluded from the final merit list/notification dated 15.01.2026.

The applicant asserted that he possessed a valid EWS certificate dated 14.10.2024, issued in the prescribed format before the prescribed cut-off date.

Aggrieved by the arbitrary change in category, the applicant filed the present Original Application (O.A.) seeking to quash the scorecard and result, and to direct the respondents to restore his EWS status and issue an appointment letter.

During the hearing, the applicant restricted his prayer to a time-bound disposal of his pending representation.

Whether the respondents’ action of changing the applicant’s category from EWS to General was erroneous and whether the competent authority should be directed to decide the applicant’s representation through a reasoned and speaking order.

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

It applied the principle of administrative transparency and natural justice, which requires the executive to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when considering representations regarding recruitment grievances.

The court also noted the importance of adhering to the "prescribed format" and "cut-off dates" for category certificates in public examinations.

The applicant contended that he had successfully qualified all stages of the selection process and secured marks (126.68356) that would have warranted his selection under the EWS category.

The core of the grievance was the allegedly erroneous clerical or administrative shift of his status to the ‘General’ category in the final results.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the selection itself but focused on the procedural lapse of the respondents in not addressing the applicant's representation.

It observed that since the applicant claimed to have a valid EWS certificate dated 14.10.2024 obtained before the cut-off date, the respondents were duty-bound to evaluate these facts.

By directing a time-bound speaking order, the Tribunal ensured that the administrative body justifies the exclusion of the candidate or corrects the error if the eligibility criteria were indeed met.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to dispose of the applicant's representation (Annexure-A/12) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The order must specifically assign reasons as to why the applicant was not reflected in the merit list despite his scores.

If the decision is in favor of the applicant, consequential benefits must be granted within 30 days thereafter.

The applicant was granted liberty to seek further legal remedies if aggrieved by the subsequent speaking order.