Competent authority must decide deputation-cum-absorption representation by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicant, Mahender Singh, was working as a Senior Translation Officer in the Rajbhasha Cadre in the Office of the Accountant General (Audit-II), Punjab. He qualified the SAS Examination-I of 2024 in the Civil Accounts stream and submitted a representation dated 13 March 2025 seeking appointment as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Haryana, Chandigarh, on deputation-cum-absorption basis.

The representation was forwarded through proper channel, and the Headquarters, by communication dated 29 May 2025, directed action in accordance with paragraph 2(B)(ii) of the Circular dated 2 July 2018.

The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Haryana, rejected the request by communication dated 22 September 2025, stating that the vacancy position did not permit deputation of an official from another office.

The applicant thereafter submitted a further representation dated 17 October 2025 to Headquarters.

During hearing, the applicant confined his prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of his representation dated 17 October 2025, and the respondents conceded this limited relief.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 17 October 2025 for appointment as Assistant Accounts Officer on deputation-cum-absorption basis under the applicable circulars and Headquarters’ communication?

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s entitlement to deputation-cum-absorption or merely direct a reasoned decision by the competent authority?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved employee may seek redress against a service-related grievance.

The claim was to be considered under paragraph 2(B)(ii) of Headquarters Circular No. 19-Staff Apptt. IV/2018 dated 2 July 2018, the Circular dated 5 March 2020, and the Headquarters’ communication dated 29 May 2025, which governed consideration for appointment as AAO on deputation-cum-absorption basis.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider the employee’s representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order, without itself expressing a view on the substantive merits of the claim.

The applicant initially challenged the rejection of his request on the ground that the vacancy position did not permit deputation from another office. However, he limited his relief to consideration of his pending representation dated 17 October 2025, and the respondents accepted this innocuous prayer.

Since Headquarters had already directed that the matter be processed under paragraph 2(B)(ii) of the 2 July 2018 Circular, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the representation in light of the governing circulars and the communication dated 29 May 2025.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant was substantively entitled to appointment, leaving that question to the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

A reasoned and speaking order was directed to be passed within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, and the decision was to be communicated to the applicant forthwith thereafter.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim. No order as to costs was made.