Competent Authority Must Dispose of Pending Representations with Reasoned Orders Within Specified Timeframe

The applicant, a Public Relations Assistant in the Government of Puducherry, alleges that the 4th respondent secured his initial appointment as a Reporter in 2000 by submitting a forged and fabricated experience certificate from “Nanbargal Thottam” magazine

The applicant contends that RTI records reveal the 4th respondent was actually working as an NMR employee in the Public Works Department during the period he claimed to have gained journalism experience

Despite the applicant submitting representations on 27.10.2025 and 12.03.2026 calling for a vigilance inquiry and disciplinary proceedings, the respondent authorities failed to take a final decision

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking a direction for the disposal of his representations

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider and dispose of the applicant's pending representations regarding the alleged appointment fraud of the 4th respondent within a specified timeframe.

The court applied the principle of administrative responsiveness and the duty of authorities to pass reasoned orders on pending representations.

It focused on the doctrine of "justice, equity, and good conscience" to ensure that allegations of fraud in public appointments—which go to the root of the eligibility—are examined via a speaking and well-reasoned order by the competent authority

The Tribunal noted the limited nature of the relief sought by the applicant, which was merely a direction to the respondents to decide on his pending representations

Given that the representations dated 27.10.2025 and 12.03.2026 detailed serious allegations of forged credentials and arbitrary selection processes, the Tribunal found it appropriate to intervene at the admission stage

Without delving into the merits of the fraud allegations or the validity of the 4th respondent's 20-year service, the Tribunal emphasized that the administrative authorities must exercise their jurisdiction to resolve such grievances through a formal, reasoned decision to meet the ends of justice

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the applicant's representations (Annexures A-5 A-7) and pass a "speaking and well-reasoned order" within two months from the date of receipt of the court’s order