Recruiting authorities must decide the candidate’s certificate-related representation by a reasoned order within one week.

The applicant, an OBC-NCL candidate from Uttar Pradesh, applied for the post of Primary Teacher under KVS/NVS Recruitment Notification No. 01/2025.

The notification required an OBC-NCL certificate issued between 1 January and 4 December 2025. The applicant held an earlier certificate dated 12 August 2023 and an updated certificate dated 25 September 2026.

After qualifying the Tier-2 examination, he was called for document verification and interview on 24 October 2026. He had submitted a representation seeking acceptance of his certificate and initially sought provisional permission to participate in the next recruitment stage.

At the hearing, he stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents decided his pending representation by a reasoned order within a fixed time; the respondents did not object.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation concerning acceptance of his OBC-NCL certificate within a specified time.

2. Whether the Tribunal should grant the applicant provisional permission to undergo document verification and interview.

The applicant relied on Nijesh K. v. Department of School Education and Literacy, O.A. No. 463/2026 (CAT Ernakulam); AIIMS v. Girdhari Lal Jakhar; Raghvendra Singh & Anr. v. UPSC & Anr.; and Ram Kumar Gijroya v. DSSSB, contending that reservation benefits should not be denied on technical grounds concerning certificate issuance dates.

The Tribunal did not determine the substantive rules governing the validity or timing of OBC-NCL certificates. The Tribunal made no finding on those authorities or on the merits of the applicant’s claim.

The applicant narrowed the relief sought to a time-bound decision on his pending representation, and the respondents had no objection to that course.

The Tribunal therefore disposed of the matter at the admission stage by directing the respondents to decide the representation through a reasoned and speaking order. It expressly left the merits open and did not order provisional participation in document verification or the interview.

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