Authorities must decide representations regarding OBC-NCL certificate eligibility holistically via reasoned and speaking orders.

The applicant, a candidate for the post of Counsellor (Post Code 45/21), challenged three deficiency memos dated 30.12.2025, 02.02.2026, and 18.02.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3

These memos demanded an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) Certificate specifically for the financial year 2021-22.

The applicant contended that she possesses a valid OBC Certificate dated 20.06.2017 and a continuous chain of NCL Certificates for the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25

The applicant submitted a representation on 09.01.2026 and an email on 16.01.2026 to the respondents explaining her position, but these remained pending consideration

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide upon the applicant's pending representations regarding the sufficiency of her OBC-NCL documentation

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

The court applied the administrative law principle that authorities must dispose of pending representations from aggrieved employees/candidates through a "reasoned and speaking order" to ensure transparency and adherence to the principles of natural justice

The Tribunal avoided an adjudication on the substantive merits of whether the "continuous chain" of NCL certificates satisfied the requirement for the specific year 2021-22

The court focused on the procedural aspect of the case. It noted that the applicant had already approached the respondents via formal representations which were left undecided

The Tribunal reasoned that a holistic review by the respondents was necessary to determine if the applicant's status was sufficiently proven by the surrounding years' certificates

Consequently, the court found it appropriate to direct the respondents to perform their administrative duty of evaluating the applicant's claim and passing a formal decision before the Tribunal intervened further

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s case holistically and decide her pending representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the order

The Tribunal further ordered that if the decision is in favor of the applicant, all consequential benefits must be granted within forty-five (45) days thereafter

M.A. No. 1329/2026 for exemption was allowed

No order as to costs was made