Facts
The applicants were appointed as Instructors in Computer Science in the Puducherry School Education Department pursuant to a notification dated 21 July 2010 and stated that they had served continuously since 2011. They sought regularisation against sanctioned posts, relying on an earlier proposal to absorb them and a representation dated 1 April 2026 that remained undecided. They also sought permission to file one Original Application jointly and to waive the appeal period for filing it.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The Tribunal allowed both miscellaneous applications and directed the Registry to number the OA.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicants’ representation seeking regularisation should be considered and decided by the competent authority within a fixed period.
Source reference: pp. 4–52. Whether the applicants’ miscellaneous applications to join together in one OA and waive the appeal period should be allowed.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The order cites no statute, regulation, or precedent.
Source reference: no citationIt applies the procedural principle that, where the requested relief is limited to securing a decision on a pending representation, the Tribunal may direct the competent authority to consider and decide that representation by a speaking and well-reasoned order within a specified period, without examining the underlying merits.
Source reference: pp. 4–5Reasoning
The applicants submitted that their representation dated 1 April 2026 had not been decided and asked for a time-bound direction. The Tribunal considered that limited request sufficient to dispose of the matter at the admission stage.
Source reference: pp. 4–5It expressly declined to enter into the merits of the regularisation claim, leaving the competent authority to consider the representation and issue a reasoned decision.
Source reference: pp. 4–5Holding
The Tribunal allowed both miscellaneous applications and directed the Registry to number the OA.
It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the applicants’ representation dated 1 April 2026 and pass a speaking and well-reasoned order within two months of receiving a copy of the Tribunal’s order. The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, with no determination on the merits of regularisation.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
P PRADAB and 24 ORSvsUT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Authorities must issue a reasoned order on the regularisation representation within two months.. P PRADAB and 24 ORS vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS. CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/authorities-must-issue-a-reasoned-order-on-the-regularisation-representation-within-two-mo-afffe09e2f2a42788f23db62876bf9c6.webp)