Authority directed to decide petitioners’ representation through a reasoned order within four weeks.

The petitioners were serving as Ucch Pad Prabhar (Madhyamik Shikshak) pursuant to posting orders issued in 2024. They were subsequently deputed as Janshikshaks against vacant posts under the District Education Centre, Rajgarh, by order dated 8 May 2025.

On 24 June 2026, the competent authority issued guidelines for filling vacancies of Janshikshak under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, including an eligibility condition that candidates must not have attained 52 years of age as on 1 January 2026.

Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued a counselling communication dated 31 July 2026 covering certain posts but allegedly failed to include the cadre of Ucch Pad Prabhar (Madhyamik Shikshak).

The petitioners submitted a representation dated 5 August 2026 seeking their inclusion in the counselling process. While the representation remained pending, respondent No. 3 stayed the counselling process by order dated 6 August 2026.

Whether respondent No. 3 was required to consider the petitioners’ representation concerning inclusion of the Ucch Pad Prabhar (Madhyamik Shikshak) cadre in the Janshikshak counselling and selection process in accordance with the guidelines dated 24 June 2026.

Whether the Court should directly grant the substantive reliefs sought by the petitioners, including their inclusion in counselling and appointment as Janshikshaks, or instead direct the competent authority to decide their pending representation.

Whether the counselling process and the number of Janshikshak posts were required to be conducted strictly in accordance with the communication dated 24 June 2026, including the age-limit condition.

The Court applied the principle that a pending administrative representation concerning eligibility and participation in a selection or counselling process must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the governing policy and disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to appointment, the interpretation of the 24 June 2026 guidelines, or the legality of the counselling communication.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance related to the alleged exclusion of their cadre from the Janshikshak counselling process and that they had already submitted a representation to respondent No. 3.

Since the counselling process had itself been stayed, and the State indicated that the representation would be considered in accordance with law, the Court found it unnecessary to examine or grant the broader substantive reliefs at that stage.

Treating the petitioners’ request for consideration of the representation as an innocuous and limited prayer, the Court directed the competent authority to independently consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed time.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 5 August 2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of communication of the High Court’s order.

No direct direction was issued to include the petitioners in counselling or appoint them as Janshikshaks.