Authority directed to expeditiously consider representation, given that recruitment advertisement had already been published.

The 64 appellants filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 20.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6260 of 2026, by which their writ petition was dismissed

During the hearing, the appellants did not press the appeal on merits and sought liberty to submit a representation before the concerned authority, along with a direction for its expeditious consideration, particularly as the recruitment advertisement had already been issued/published

The State supported the impugned order but raised no objection to the grant of such liberty.

Whether the appellants should be permitted to submit a representation before the concerned authority in relation to their grievance arising from the recruitment process

Whether the concerned authority should be directed to consider such representation expeditiously in view of the recruitment advertisement already having been issued/published

The Court applied the procedural principle that, where a party seeks to pursue an administrative remedy by way of representation and the opposing party has no objection, the writ appeal may be disposed of by granting liberty to submit such representation, without adjudicating the underlying merits

The Court further directed expeditious consideration because the recruitment advertisement had already been issued/published.

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

The appellants requested that the appeal be disposed of in terms of the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, with liberty to approach the competent authority by representation

The State did not oppose this limited relief

Considering the parties’ submissions and the materials on record, the Division Bench chose not to examine the substantive grievance and instead preserved the appellants’ right to seek administrative consideration. Given the ongoing recruitment process and the publication of the advertisement, the Court considered expeditious consideration necessary

The authority was directed to consider the representation expeditiously, keeping in view that the recruitment advertisement had already been issued/published

No other relief was granted, and the appeal accordingly stood disposed of