Competent authority must decide the applicant’s eligibility representation through a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant applied for the post of Workshop Technician Grade-II (R&AL) under the Common Recruitment Examination (CRE)-2024.

Her candidature, bearing Roll No. 6230783, was rejected at the document-verification stage because she possessed a Bachelor’s Degree in Prosthetics & Orthotics, whereas the prescribed qualification was a Diploma in the same discipline.

The applicant challenged the rejection notice dated 6 November 2025 and the subsequent communication dated 12 June 2026, contending that her bachelor’s degree was a higher qualification in the same discipline.

During the hearing, the applicant’s counsel fairly conceded that no detailed representation had been submitted to Respondent No. 3, AIIMS Bilaspur, and expressed willingness to submit one along with relevant judicial precedents.

The respondents contended that the OA was premature and agreed that the competent authority could be directed to consider and decide such representation.

1. Whether the applicant should first submit a detailed representation to the competent authority at AIIMS Bilaspur concerning the rejection of her candidature on the basis of possessing a Bachelor’s Degree instead of the prescribed Diploma.

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the competent authority to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed time, without adjudicating the merits of the applicant’s eligibility claim.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that an aggrieved person should ordinarily approach the competent administrative authority through a detailed representation before seeking substantive adjudication, particularly where an effective authority has not yet considered the claim.

It further directed that the representation be decided in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, thereby requiring the authority to apply its mind and communicate the basis of its decision.

Since the applicant had not submitted a detailed representation to Respondent No. 3, the Tribunal treated the OA as premature for substantive adjudication.

The applicant was permitted to place her claim, supporting documents, and judicial authorities before the competent authority.

In view of the respondents’ lack of objection, the Tribunal directed the authority to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding whether a Bachelor’s Degree in Prosthetics & Orthotics constituted a higher or equivalent qualification to the prescribed Diploma.

The applicant was directed to submit a detailed representation, with supporting documents and judicial pronouncements, within one week of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within four weeks of its receipt and communicate the decision to the applicant forthwith.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim and awarded no costs.