Authorities must consider the application as a representation and issue a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicant had applied for the post of Coach (Kayaking & Canoeing), initially advertised in 2018. That selection process was not completed on the ground that fewer than five eligible candidates were available.

In 2026, the University re-advertised one unreserved post for the same position. The applicant applied and was declared the sole eligible candidate after scrutiny.

Subsequently, by notice dated 12 August 2026, the respondents scrapped the selection process and proposed re-advertisement by relying on Clause C of the University’s Notification dated 17 December 2025, which contemplated re-advertisement where fewer than five candidates were eligible.

The applicant challenged the notice and sought continuation of the selection process, including an interview and consequential appointment if found suitable.

During hearing, the applicant agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, and the respondents raised no objection.

Whether the O.A. should be disposed of by treating it as a representation concerning the cancellation and proposed re-advertisement of the post of Coach (Kayaking & Canoeing).

Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicant’s assertions, eligibility, and the validity or applicability of the impugned action in accordance with law.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that, where the parties consent, a writ or original application may be disposed of by directing the competent authority to treat it as a representation and decide it in accordance with law.

The competent authority must consider the applicable rules, the applicant’s entitlement and eligibility, relevant documents, and the governing legal framework, and must pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly declined to adjudicate the merits and left all questions of fact and law open for consideration by the competent authority.

Since both parties were ad idem that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, the Tribunal did not determine whether Clause C was arbitrary, ultra vires, or applicable to the post in question.

Instead, it directed the respondents to examine the applicant’s claims in light of the applicable law, rules and regulations, his eligibility and entitlement, and the documents annexed to the O.A., including the relevant notices and circulars.

The Tribunal thereby preserved the substantive issues for determination by the competent authority rather than granting the requested interview or appointment directly.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the applicant’s assertions and supporting documents in accordance with law, and pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

All questions of fact and law were left open, and the connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of; parties were left to bear their own costs.