Final result publication stayed pending disposal of representation against exclusion from selection process list.

The petitioner applied for the post of Legal-cum-Probation Officer under the "Mission Vatsalya Yojana" (a centrally sponsored scheme) pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.08.2025.

Initially, the respondent authorities published a list on 12.12.2025 (File No. 1242) declaring the petitioner eligible.

However, a revised list/corrigendum was issued on 26.12.2025 (File No. 1289) for counselling, which excluded the petitioner’s name without assigned reasons.

The petitioner submitted an email representation to Respondent No. 2 on 03.01.2026, which remained unaddressed while the selection process continued.

1. Whether the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily by excluding the petitioner's name from the revised counselling list after initially declaring him eligible.

2. Whether the Court should direct the disposal of the petitioner’s pending representation before the final results are published.

The court applied principles of Administrative Law regarding the duty of state authorities to act fairly and the requirement of passing reasoned orders on representations.

Procedurally, the court exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to ensure administrative accountability in recruitment processes conducted under the Social Welfare Department.

The court observed that the petitioner was initially shortlisted as eligible but later excluded in a corrigendum without explanation.

While the petitioner sought to quash the revised list, the court determined that since the final results had not yet been published, a full counter-affidavit from the State was unnecessary at this juncture.

Instead, the court reasoned that the interests of justice would be served by ensuring the petitioner's administrative grievance was addressed through a "reasoned and speaking order" before the recruitment process concluded.

The court tied the finality of the selection process to the resolution of the petitioner’s representation to prevent irreparable prejudice.

It directed Respondent No. 2 to take a decision and pass a reasoned, speaking order on the petitioner’s representation (Annexure-P/5) within 60 days of receiving the court's order.

Crucially, the Court held that the authorities shall not publish the final results of the selection process until a decision on the petitioner's representation is taken.