Authorities must pass a reasoned decision on COVID-affected NCL certificates under applicable recruitment rules.

The DSSSB issued Advertisement dated 04.01.2020 for the post of TGT (Computer Science), Post Code 91/20. The applicant applied under the OBC category, appeared in the examination, was declared successful, and her dossier was forwarded to the Directorate of Education, GNCTD.

The Directorate issued her an Offer of Appointment dated 02.07.2024, which she accepted. However, instead of issuing an appointment/joining letter, the Directorate issued a Deficiency Memo dated 11.07.2024 requiring a valid Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate issued on or before the cut-off date.

The applicant replied on 16.07.2024, producing her NCL certificate dated 14.02.2019, stated to be valid up to 31.03.2020, and a subsequent NCL certificate dated 15.07.2024 relating to the financial year 2019–20.

She contended that the COVID-19 pandemic and closure of government offices had prevented timely issuance of the relevant certificate.

She also relied on an NCL certificate issued on 03.11.2021 and the Government of NCT of Delhi Circular dated 10.03.2023, which permitted consideration of applications for certificates relating to the COVID-affected financial years.

The respondents had not rejected her candidature or taken a final decision on her reply to the deficiency memo. The applicant therefore approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking appointment, quashing of the deficiency memo, and consequential benefits.

Whether the respondents could withhold the applicant’s appointment without taking a reasoned decision on her reply and the NCL certificates produced by her

Whether the applicant’s claim was required to be reconsidered in light of the applicable Recruitment Rules, the terms of the Advertisement, and the Government of NCT of Delhi Circular dated 10.03.2023 concerning COVID-affected NCL certificates

Whether the applicant was entitled, at that stage, to a direction for appointment and consequential benefits

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

It applied the applicable Recruitment Rules and the conditions of the recruitment Advertisement governing submission of OBC/NCL certificates.

The Tribunal also considered the Government of NCT of Delhi Circular dated 10.03.2023, which directed the competent Revenue Authorities to examine applications for NCL certificates relating to the financial years affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and issue certificates where eligibility was established.

The Tribunal further noted the reliance placed by the applicant on the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 5233/2025, dated 15.05.2025, although the judgment does not set out the specific principle applied from that decision.

The governing procedural principle was that an administrative authority must consider the relevant documents and pass a reasoned and speaking order before finally rejecting a candidate’s claim.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had not finally rejected the applicant’s candidature and had not adjudicated her reply dated 16.07.2024 to the deficiency memo.

Since the applicant had produced certificates relating to the relevant period and specifically invoked the 10.03.2023 COVID-related Circular, the respondents were required to examine whether she fulfilled the OBC/NCL eligibility requirements under the Recruitment Rules and Advertisement.

The Tribunal did not itself determine the applicant’s final eligibility or direct immediate appointment.

Instead, it held that the competent authority should consider the applicant’s representation, the certificates and other documents on record, the deficiency memo, and the applicable legal and administrative framework, and thereafter issue a reasoned decision.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider the applicant’s claim in light of the Recruitment Rules, the Advertisement, and the Circular dated 10.03.2023, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The decision was to be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.