Facts
The applicant, an OBC candidate for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female), Post Code 40/21, challenged a deficiency memo dated 17 March 2025 concerning her candidature and sought, among other reliefs, consideration under the OBC category
Source reference: p. 2, reliefs I–IVShe filed the O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, after a delay of 189 days; the Tribunal condoned the delay on the basis of the reasons stated in the application and supported by affidavit
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1At the hearing, counsel stated that the applicant would be satisfied with a direction to decide her legal notice/representation dated 5 September 2026 by a reasoned order
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2The respondents appeared and sought time to obtain instructions
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3Issues
Whether the delay of 189 days in filing the O.A. should be condoned
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order, without the Tribunal determining the merits of her claims
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2; p. 4, para. 4Law Applied
The O.A. was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the procedural basis for an application to the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 2, introductory paragraphThe Tribunal identified no other statute, precedent, or substantive rule governing the applicant’s eligibility or OBC claim, and expressly refrained from deciding the merits
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 4, 6It directed the respondents to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal first accepted the applicant’s explanation for the filing delay, which was supported by an affidavit, and condoned the delay
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1As the applicant limited her request at the hearing to a decision on her pending representation, and the respondents appeared but sought time for instructions, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. on that limited basis without examining the deficiency memo, the applicant’s qualifications, or the validity of her certificates
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 2–4, 6Holding
The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed the respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order
A copy of the decision must be provided to the applicant; if the decision is in her favour, any consequential relief must follow within a further 45 days
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage without a decision on the merits, with no order as to costs
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851
Original Court PDF
IshratvsDSSSB (GNCTD)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Authorities must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within 30 days.. Ishrat vs DSSSB (GNCTD). CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/authorities-must-decide-the-pending-representation-by-a-reasoned-order-within-30-days-53d63e0723eb44c7bd966ee3adb04d91.webp)