Pending representations must be decided by a speaking order considering the cited precedent.

The applicants, appointed as TGT (Hindi) (Female), sought appointment from the date on which similarly placed candidates selected in the same recruitment process were appointed, together with consequential benefits.

They submitted that their representations remained pending and, at the hearing, limited their request to a direction requiring the respondents to decide those representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

They also asked that the Tribunal’s decision in *Dimple Ahuja v. GNCT of Delhi*, O.A. No. 2404/2024, dated 25 March 2025, be considered.

The applicants were permitted to pursue the O.A. jointly, and their exemption application was allowed subject to just exceptions.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the Tribunal’s judgment in *Dimple Ahuja v. GNCT of Delhi* while deciding those representations.

The O.A. was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal did not apply or state any substantive rule governing the applicants’ entitlement to appointment, seniority, or arrears.

It directed the respondents to consider the representations, including the cited judgment, and issue a reasoned and speaking order; it did not determine the effect or applicability of *Dimple Ahuja* on the merits.

Because the applicants confined their request to disposal of their pending representations, and the respondents’ counsel sought time to obtain instructions, the Tribunal granted the limited procedural relief sought without examining the underlying appointment claim.

It required the respondents to consider *Dimple Ahuja* when deciding the representations, but expressly left the merits open.

It expressed no opinion on the merits, disposed of any pending M.A.s, and made no order as to costs.