Authorities must decide pending recruitment eligibility representations through reasoned and speaking orders.

The applicant, Nisha Duhan, applied for the post of PGT Computer Science (Female), Post Code 30/22, under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD

The respondents issued a Deficiency Memo dated 21.06.2024, alleging that the applicant’s OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate was issued after the prescribed cut-off date, leading to the withholding of her appointment

The applicant contended that her NCL certificate dated 31.03.2023 was valid but not considered

She submitted representations on 04.07.2024 and 05.08.2024, which remained pending

She filed the present Original Application (O.A.) seeking to set aside the deficiency memo and to direct the respondents to accept her certificate and grant her appointment

1. Whether the respondents’ action in withholding the appointment due to the date of the OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate was legally justified

2. Whether the Tribunal should intervene on the merits while the applicant's administrative representations remain pending before the respondents

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

The court applied the administrative principle that authorities must dispose of pending representations via reasoned and speaking orders.

It further acknowledged the statutory requirement to consider preliminary objections, such as limitation, as raised by the respondents

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already approached the respondents with multiple representations (dated 04.07.2024 and 05.08.2024) concerning her NCL status and the specific certificate dated 31.03.2023

Although the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the O.A. on the grounds of limitation, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate on the merits or the limitation issue at this stage

Instead, it held that the competent authority must first discharge its duty to evaluate the applicant's claims as presented in her representations

By directing a time-bound administrative review, the Tribunal aimed to resolve the dispute through proper administrative channels before judicial intervention

It directed the respondents’ competent authority to decide the applicant's pending representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law, within thirty days of receiving the order

It further ordered that should the decision be in the applicant's favour, consequential reliefs must be provided within a subsequent thirty-day period

No order was made as to costs