Authorities must decide the regularisation claim by a reasoned order without prejudging its merits.

The applicant was engaged in 2005 as an Education Volunteer at an EGS Centre under the Rehbar-e-Taleem pattern.

Following the upgradation of the Centre under Government Order No. 332-Edu of 2008, she was converted/elevated as a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) by order dated 12 May 2018, with effect from 25 October 2010, after claiming to have satisfied the requisite educational qualifications.

A complaint was subsequently filed alleging that her Class XII qualification certificate was fake.

The respondents halted her regularisation/conversion from ReT to RReT and sought verification of her certificates.

The applicant asserted that the relevant authorities, including the Board and investigating agencies, had verified her certificates as genuine, but that her regularisation claim remained undecided despite repeated representations, including the representation dated 22 April 2025.

During the hearing, she restricted her prayer to a direction requiring the respondents to consider her claim and pass an appropriate order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s claim for regularisation/conversion from ReT to RReT/Regular Teacher, along with the supporting documents and verification reports, in accordance with law.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s entitlement to regularisation, or instead direct the competent authority to take a reasoned decision on her representation.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a duly raised service claim in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, regulations and governing policy, and must issue a detailed, reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal did not identify or apply any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent, nor did it determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement to regularisation.

Since the applicant limited her request to consideration of her representation, and the respondents consented to disposal with appropriate directions, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

The Tribunal therefore directed the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and to examine the applicant’s claims, the representation dated 22 April 2025, and the verification reports.

Importantly, it left all factual and legal questions—including the genuineness and legal effect of the qualifications, the alleged entitlement to regularisation, and the claim of parity with similarly situated teachers—to be decided by the competent authority.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s claim for regularisation/conversion, together with all annexures and verification material, and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The decision was to be communicated to the applicant within one further week.

No order was made as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.