Mandamus to decide representation regarding seniority and promotion criteria in light of judicial precedents.

The applicant, Mukesh Kumar, was appointed as an Assistant Station Master in 2002 and later granted Level-8 pay scale under the MACP Scheme in 2024.

Following a notification dated 15.11.2024 for selection to the post of Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM-70% Group-B) for the 2025-26 vacancy cycle, the applicant participated and was declared successful in the selection process.

However, the respondents did not empanel him, allegedly due to an improperly prepared seniority list dated 17.07.2025, which left his pay scale blank and prioritized candidates in Level-7 (Grade Pay ₹4600/-).

The applicant submitted a representation on 17.03.2026 citing a similar case decided by the CAT Kolkata Bench, which remained pending.

1. Whether the respondents are required to consider and decide the applicant's representation regarding the legality of the seniority list and non-empanelment for the ACM post in light of existing judicial precedents.

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to redress grievances of government servants.

The primary legal principle involved is the requirement for administrative authorities to act fairly and pass reasoned "speaking orders" when considering representations regarding service matters and selection processes.

The court also noted the persuasive value of the Kolkata Bench of the CAT (order dated 25.02.2026), which held that seniority for selection should be based on the length of non-fortuitous service in a particular Grade Pay.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the seniority dispute but focused on the procedural lapse regarding the pending representation.

It noted the applicant's contention that his exclusion was contrary to rules, as his initial Grade Pay was ₹4200/- and he had been successful in the selection exams.

The Tribunal held that since a representation dated 17.03.2026 was already pending before the competent authority (General Manager, Personnel), the most appropriate relief, as requested by the applicant's counsel, was to mandate a time-bound disposal of said representation.

The court emphasized that the respondents must evaluate the applicant's case specifically against the legal grounds established by the Kolkata Bench decision to ensure consistency in administrative action.

The court ordered the passing of a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, taking into account relevant rules, instructions, and the cited Kolkata Bench precedent.

All pending M.As were treated as disposed of with no order as to costs.