Higher authority must adjudicate representation when the applicant holds the post designated for internal review.

The applicant, serving as the Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Technology (DBRAIT), sought placement in the Lecturer Selection Grade effective from 21.07.2009 and advance increments for acquiring an M.Tech degree as per AICTE norms

The applicant’s representations were processed via an administrative Note dated 28.01.2026, which referred the matter to the "Dean, Internal Quality Assessment Cell (IQAC)" for examination

However, the applicant himself held the dual charge of HoD and Dean, IQAC, making the referral for self-examination procedurally circular and futile

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a quashing of this administrative action and a direction for correct pay re-fixation

1. Whether the administrative action of referring the applicant's grievance to a committee headed by the applicant himself is procedurally valid and consistent with the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the Lecturer Selection Grade and advance increments as per the AICTE Notification 1998-99 and subsequent pay revisions

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

It applied the fundamental principles of natural justice, specifically the rule that an individual cannot be a judge in their own cause, and the administrative principle that grievances must be redressed by a higher competent authority to ensure impartiality and efficacy

The Tribunal noted the procedural absurdity where the respondent administration directed the applicant’s own representation to be examined by the Dean, IQAC—a post held by the applicant himself

The court observed that such an exercise was "futile"

During the proceedings, the respondents conceded that the matter should instead be referred to a higher competent authority

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that rather than adjudicating the merits of the pay scale claims (such as the AICTE 1998-99 Notification or the 7th CPC re-fixation) at this stage, the appropriate remedy was to mandate an independent review by a superior officer

The Tribunal emphasized that the administrative process must culminate in a "reasoned and speaking order" to ensure transparency

It directed the respondents to refer the applicant’s case to a higher competent authority (Respondent No. 4 or above)

The authority is ordered to treat the O.A. as a supplementary representation and pass a final, reasoned, and speaking order regarding the Selection Grade and M.Tech increments within two months, followed by any necessary consequential actions

All legal points regarding the merits of the pay claims remain open for future consideration