Court directs disposal of pending recruitment representations through reasoned and speaking orders within thirty days.

The Applicant applied for the post of Principal under the Special Recruitment Drive 2022-23 for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in the North Eastern Region.

Following the declaration of results via notice dated 16.05.2023, the Applicant discovered he had secured 43.87 marks, which was identical to the marks obtained by a candidate at Rank 108 who was successfully selected.

Despite this parity in marks, the Applicant was denied selection and appointment.

The Applicant submitted multiple representations to the respondents, specifically on 07.07.2025, 22.08.2025, 01.09.2025, and 15.09.2025, seeking appointment from the waitlist and transparency in the merit list.

As these representations remained unaddressed, the Applicant approached the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Respondents are legally obligated to consider and decide upon the Applicant’s pending representation regarding his non-selection despite securing marks equal to a selected candidate.

2. Whether the recruitment process lacked transparency due to the non-publication of a complete Combined Merit List (CML).

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the administrative principle of "reasoned and speaking orders," which requires authorities to fairly consider representations from aggrieved employees and provide a logical basis for their decisions.

The court also implicitly relied on the principle of parity in public employment, where candidates with identical merit should be treated equally unless valid differentiating criteria exist.

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant's grievance centered on being excluded from selection despite securing 43.87 marks, identical to a selected candidate at Rank 108.

During the proceedings, the Applicant’s counsel narrowed the scope of the prayer, requesting that the Tribunal simply direct the respondents to dispose of the pending representation dated 07.07.2025.

The Tribunal opted not to delve into the merits of the marks distribution or the selection process at this stage.

Instead, it held that the interests of justice would be served by directing the administrative authorities to perform their duty of adjudicating the Applicant's grievances through a formal order.

By mandating a "reasoned and speaking order," the Tribunal ensured that the respondents would have to provide a legal and factual justification for why the Applicant was excluded while a candidate with identical marks was appointed.

The Respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the Applicant's representation dated 07.07.2025 in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receiving the order.

It further directed that if the decision is in favor of the Applicant, all consequential benefits must be extended within a subsequent period of 45 days.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.