Authorities must consider eligibility representations after personal hearing and issue a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicant, a PwBD and Group ‘A’ Gazetted Officer serving as Assistant Director in the Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, applied for the post of Regional Director, National Centre for Organic and Natural Farming, pursuant to UPSC Advertisement No. 08/2025.

The advertised post was a backlog vacancy reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities.

The applicant claimed that he possessed the prescribed educational qualifications, relevant research and technical experience, administrative experience, and a Ph.D. in Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry.

However, his candidature was declared ineligible under LEQ(B) on the alleged ground that he lacked the prescribed essential experience and he was not shortlisted.

He submitted representations dated 05.12.2025 and 29.07.2026, but remained dissatisfied as no reasoned decision was communicated to him.

He therefore approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking reconsideration of his eligibility, a speaking order, and consequential shortlisting if found eligible.

1. Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s candidature for the post of Regional Director, NCONF, after examining his claimed educational qualifications, research, technical experience, and administrative experience under the applicable Recruitment Rules and Advertisement No. 08/2025.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to a reasoned and speaking order, after an opportunity of personal hearing, on his representations challenging the declaration of ineligibility under LEQ(B).

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to challenge service-related decisions before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It applied the administrative-law requirement that an authority considering an employee’s eligibility or representation must objectively examine the relevant material and communicate a reasoned and speaking decision.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the principle of natural justice by directing that the applicant be granted an opportunity of personal hearing before a decision was taken.

No precedent was cited, and the Tribunal expressly left the merits of the applicant’s eligibility open.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the applicant actually satisfied the essential experience requirement or whether his Ph.D., research work, technical experience, and DDO-related administrative experience qualified under the Recruitment Rules.

Since the applicant sought, at that stage, consideration of his pending representations, the Tribunal treated the Original Application as part of those representations and directed the competent authority to examine them objectively.

In view of the applicant’s allegation that he had been declared ineligible without a reasoned explanation, the Tribunal required a personal hearing and a speaking order, thereby ensuring procedural fairness without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Respondent No. 2 or another competent authority was directed to consider the applicant’s representations dated 05.12.2025 and 29.07.2026, treating the Original Application as part of those representations, grant him a personal hearing, and communicate a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

All issues on merits were kept open, and no costs were awarded.