Authorities must consider medical-exigency representations under applicable Office Memoranda and pass a reasoned speaking order.

The applicant had been issued an offer of appointment by the Department of Information Technology, Government of NCT of Delhi.

He could not join within the stipulated period because of the medical exigency of his mother.

The applicant accepted that six months from the date of the original appointment offer had expired and that he had not submitted his representation within the prescribed period.

The appointment offer was subsequently cancelled by Order F.18(4)/2021.ITC/Misc. B059-60 dated 13.05.2024.

The applicant made representations after the cancellation, including communications dated 15.05.2024 and 22.05.2024, and a subsequent email/representation referred to in the order.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that the OA was not maintainable and that the applicant’s dossier had already been returned to the UPSC, leaving no relief available at that stage.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s representation, supported by medical records, notwithstanding the expiry of the six-month joining period and cancellation of the appointment offer.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicant’s substantive claim for restoration of the appointment offer, or dispose of the OA by directing a fresh administrative decision.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a relevant representation in accordance with the applicable Office Memorandum and pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the representation relies on supporting medical material.

The Tribunal also followed the procedural principle that, where the competent authority has not yet considered the relevant representation, the matter may be remitted for administrative consideration without expressing any opinion on the merits and without prejudicing either party’s rights and contentions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not dispute the expiry of the six-month period and had admittedly not made a timely representation.

Nevertheless, since the applicant had subsequently submitted representations supported by medical records explaining his inability to join, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine those materials under the applicable Office Memorandum.

The respondents’ objection that the dossier had already been returned to the UPSC was not treated as conclusively preventing administrative consideration.

Rather than deciding whether the cancellation was legally valid or whether the applicant was entitled to a fresh appointment offer, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to make the initial decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider the applicant’s representation on the basis of the medical records available on record and in accordance with the applicable Office Memorandum, and to pass an appropriate speaking order within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The exercise was to be undertaken without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side and was not to be construed as an opinion on the merits.

A copy of the speaking order was to be supplied to the applicant; if the decision was favourable, consequential benefits were to be extended within 45 days thereafter.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of, with no order as to costs.