Recruiting authority directed to decide pending candidature representations by a reasoned speaking order within 30 days.

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board issued Advertisement No. 05/2024 dated 05.03.2024 for the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture), Post Code 28/24.

The applicant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, appeared in the Tier-I examination and secured 54.25 marks in Part-I and 11.25 marks in Part-II, totalling 65.50 marks.

The respondents declared the Scheduled Caste cut-off as 62.25 marks, but the applicant was not shortlisted for the Tier-II examination.

He submitted representations dated 28.06.2026 and 05.07.2026 seeking reconsideration of his candidature and permission to participate in the Tier-II examination.

According to the applicant, those representations remained undecided and no speaking or reasoned order was passed before the Tier-II examination was conducted.

He therefore approached the Tribunal seeking, inter alia, quashing of the decision treating him as unqualified, declaration that the separate qualifying criteria applied to Part-II/Section-B were inapplicable, and permission to appear in a supplementary Tier-II examination.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representations dated 28.06.2026 and 05.07.2026 by a reasoned and speaking order?

Whether the applicant was entitled, at the admission stage, to a direction treating him as qualified for Tier-II and permitting him to undertake a special or supplementary Tier-II examination?

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the representation concerns a candidate’s eligibility and participation in a selection process.

The Tribunal did not decide the underlying merits concerning the applicable qualifying criteria, the applicant’s eligibility, or his entitlement to participate in Tier-II; those questions were expressly left open.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had asserted that his aggregate score of 65.50 marks exceeded the declared Scheduled Caste cut-off of 62.25 marks, yet he had not been shortlisted for Tier-II.

Since his representations challenging this position were stated to be pending, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to address them before the recruitment process proceeded further.

However, with the consent of the parties, the Tribunal confined the adjudication to the limited question of disposal of the representations and refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims regarding the examination scheme, qualifying criteria, or Tier-II eligibility.

Respondent No. 2, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representations dated 28.06.2026 and 05.07.2026 in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal clarified that the applicant’s limited relief was confined to disposal of his representations and expressed the expectation that they would preferably be decided before declaration of the result.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.