Authorities must decide representations concerning unfilled language-specific vacancies in accordance with applicable recruitment rules.

The applicant, serving as a Clerk in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, claimed to meet the qualifications for the Kashmiri-language vacancy in the Senior Grade of the Indian Information Service (Group ‘B’).

He had participated in recruitment processes in 2019–2022 and stated that the Kashmiri-language vacancy advertised in 2021 remained unfilled after the recruitment action became infructuous at the scrutiny stage.

Despite representations seeking re-referral of the vacancy, the applicant said that no effective recruitment action had followed; he was due to cross the prescribed upper age limit on 7 February 2027.

He sought directions for a reasoned decision on his representations and consequential recruitment action, if a vacancy remained available.

At the hearing, his counsel stated that the applicant would be satisfied if the O.A. were treated as a representation.

1. Whether the applicant’s O.A. and prior representations concerning the status and possible re-referral of the Kashmiri-language vacancy should be considered and decided by the respondents.

2. Whether any consequential recruitment steps should be taken in respect of the vacancy, subject to its availability and the governing rules.

The applicant relied on the Indian Information Service (Group ‘B’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2016, including provisions said to govern language-wise recruitment and eligibility.

The Tribunal did not cite or interpret a specific statutory provision, precedent, or recruitment rule.

The Tribunal directed that the matter be decided in accordance with law and the applicable rules, and that any appropriate steps be subject to the availability of vacancies.

The applicant agreed to disposal of the O.A. on the basis that it be treated as a representation.

The Tribunal therefore did not determine whether the Kashmiri-language vacancy subsisted, whether it should be re-referred to the UPSC, or whether the applicant was eligible for appointment.

Instead, it directed the respondents to consider the O.A. together with the applicant’s other representations, take account of the Ministry’s communications, and act in accordance with the governing law and rules, subject to vacancy availability.

The Tribunal expressly made no finding on the merits and awarded no costs.