Authorities Must Treat the Application as a Representation and Pass a Reasoned Order.

The applicant, an Assistant Director (Programme) at Doordarshan Kendra, Guwahati, had been serving as Head of Programme under an earlier order dated 24 October 2024.

By an order communicated on 9 July 2026, respondent Debasish Halder, also an Assistant Director (Programme), was designated Head of Programme with effect from 10 July 2026, replacing the applicant.

The applicant challenged that designation, alleging that it violated the applicable guidelines and placed his junior in the post.

At the hearing, the applicant’s counsel stated that it would suffice if the respondents were directed to consider the case by treating the OA as a representation; the respondents did not object.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s case by treating the OA as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether status quo should be maintained pending communication of the respondents’ decision.

The order cites no statute, regulation, or precedent. It applies the procedural principle that a representation may be considered by the competent authority and determined through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also directed interim preservation of the status quo pending communication of that decision; it expressly left the merits undecided.

The applicant limited the relief sought at the hearing to consideration of his case as a representation, and the respondents raised no objection.

The Tribunal therefore directed the respondents to consider the matter and issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the order.

Because the designation dispute had not been decided on its merits, the Tribunal maintained status quo until the decision was communicated.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the applicant’s case, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

Status quo was to be maintained until that decision was communicated.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.