Fresh representation on overage candidature must be decided by a reasoned order considering the Court’s earlier decision.

The petitioner, Smt. Kiran Gupta, was serving as a teacher at Shishu Shiksha Kendra, Belpara, District Surajpur.

Her candidature was not being considered and had been rejected on the ground that she was overage.

The petitioner relied on an earlier writ petition, WPS No. 4097 of 2020, in which the State had filed a reply and the matter was disposed of with an observation that her case would be considered in the near future.

She contended that, when the earlier writ petition was filed in 2020, she was not overage.

She therefore sought permission to submit a fresh representation to the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, for reconsideration of her candidature in light of the earlier proceedings.

The State did not oppose this request.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking reconsideration of her candidature, which had been rejected on the ground of overage, in light of the earlier decision in WPS No. 4097 of 2020?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide such representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period?

The Court applied the principle that an aggrieved person may be permitted to submit a representation to the competent administrative authority where the matter requires reconsideration in light of earlier proceedings, without the Court itself adjudicating the merits at that stage.

The authority is required to consider the representation in accordance with law, take into account the relevant earlier judicial decision, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court specifically directed that the decision be taken keeping in view the order in WPS No. 4097 of 2020.

The Court noted the petitioner’s contention that her candidature had been rejected for overage despite the fact that she was not overage when the earlier writ petition was filed in 2020.

Since the State had no objection to the requested course of action, the Court considered it appropriate not to enter into the merits of the age-related or candidature dispute.

Instead, it preserved the petitioner’s opportunity to approach the competent authority through a fresh representation and required that authority to consider the earlier writ proceedings and pass a reasoned decision.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation, along with a copy of the order and relevant documents, to Respondent No. 2, the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Raipur.

The authority was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and keeping in view the decision in WPS No. 4097 of 2020, within 50 days from receipt of the representation.