Competent authority must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within four weeks.

The applicant sought consideration for appointment as Special Educator (Primary), Post Code 32/21, pursuant to an offer of appointment dated 23 January 2023. He relied on a communication dated 23 September 2026 and asked the Tribunal to overrule the Registry’s objection concerning delay in filing the OA.

At the hearing, he limited his requested relief to a direction requiring the competent authority to decide his representation dated 14 September 2026. The respondents sought time to obtain instructions, and the applicant furnished an undertaking on 28 September 2026.

Whether the Registry’s objection regarding delay in filing the OA should be overruled.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 14 September 2026.

The Tribunal relied on the principle of natural justice and directed the competent authority to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

It cited no statute or precedent, and did not determine the merits of the applicant’s appointment claim; the authority was left to decide the representation in accordance with law.

In light of the limited relief sought, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require a decision on the pending representation rather than adjudicate the underlying appointment claim.

To meet the requirements of natural justice, it directed the competent authority to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The Tribunal expressly left the merits open for determination by that authority in accordance with law.

It did not express any view on the merits. The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.