CAT - ['Delhi']
Administrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

Authorities must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within 30 days.

Ishrat vs DSSSB (GNCTD)

CAT - ['Delhi']JUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Authorities must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within 30 days.. Ishrat vs DSSSB (GNCTD). CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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–IV

She 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. 1

At 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. 2

The respondents appeared and sought time to obtain instructions

Source reference: p. 3, para. 3
02

Issues

Whether the delay of 189 days in filing the O.A. should be condoned

Source reference: p. 2, para. 1

Whether 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. 4
03

Law 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 paragraph

The 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, 6

It directed the respondents to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law

Source reference: p. 4, para. 4
04

Reasoning

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. 1

As 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, 6
05

Holding

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. 5

The 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. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851

CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

IshratvsDSSSB (GNCTD)

CAT - ['Delhi'] · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment