Authorities must complete eligibility inquiries and consider representations from provisionally selected candidates.

The petitioner applied for the post of HEM Operator Grade-III (Trainee) at NMDC’s Donimalai Complex, cleared the computer-based examination and trade test, and was included in the provisional list of candidates

After document verification, NMDC informed him that he had been provisionally selected and was to report for duty, but subsequently advised him that an enquiry was pending to verify his qualifications, category, licence and experience; he was not permitted to report

The petitioner’s representations seeking an appointment order and completion of the enquiry remained undecided, prompting this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to issue the petitioner an appointment order and permit him to report for duty as HEM Operator Grade-III (Trainee)

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to complete the pending enquiry and consider the petitioner’s representations, subject to his eligibility

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court may issue appropriate writs and directions to public authorities.

The Court did not cite any statute or precedent. It proceeded on the principle that the respondents should consider the petitioner’s representations and determine his eligibility in accordance with law, rather than granting an appointment outright.

The Court noted that the petitioner had cleared the prescribed examinations and had been provisionally selected, but that an enquiry into the validity of his eligibility documents was pending.

It did not direct NMDC to appoint him; instead, it accepted the respondents’ position that any decision depended on whether he was otherwise eligible.

Because the representations had not been considered, the Court found the respondents’ inaction unsustainable and directed completion of the enquiry followed by consideration of the representations.

The respondents were directed to complete the enquiry concerning the petitioner within six weeks, consider his representations dated 2 January 2026, 25 January 2026 and 23 May 2026 within four weeks thereafter, and report compliance to the Court.

The Court did not order the petitioner’s appointment.