Recruiting authority must decide the candidate’s representation by a speaking, reasoned order, leaving merits open.

The Railway Recruitment Boards issued Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2024 dated 20 January 2024 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, with zone-wise vacancies. The applicant opted for the Chennai zone and successfully cleared all three stages of the selection process.

He was called for certificate verification on 7 November 2025, where an objection was raised regarding his Bachelor of Engineering degree in Aeronautical Engineering, stated to have been obtained under the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. He was informed that the issue would be placed before the Board Committee.

On 28 November 2025, the respondents published a part panel in which the applicant’s candidature was shown as rejected, without specifying the reason. The applicant thereafter submitted an e-mail representation dated 8 December 2025 seeking the rejection order and reasons for rejection, but no decision was communicated.

The applicant contended that he possessed the requisite qualification, belonged to the OBC category, and had secured 74.9 marks against the cut-off of 74.7 marks.

He consequently challenged the rejection and sought a direction for medical examination and further participation in the recruitment process. During the hearing, however, he confined his immediate prayer to a direction for disposal of his pending representation.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicant’s representation dated 8 December 2025 concerning the rejection of his candidature in the recruitment process.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate, at the admission stage, the applicant’s claim regarding the validity of his educational qualification and entitlement to medical examination and further recruitment proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and pass an appropriate speaking and well-reasoned order, particularly where the representation concerns rejection from a public recruitment process.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the principle of judicial restraint that, where the applicant seeks limited procedural relief, the merits of the underlying claim need not be adjudicated at that stage.

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

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had submitted a representation dated 8 December 2025 challenging the unexplained rejection of his candidature and seeking the reasons for such rejection, but that the respondents had not passed any order on it.

Since the applicant requested only a direction for consideration of that representation, the Tribunal found it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the matter and issue a speaking and reasoned decision.

This approach preserved the applicant’s opportunity to challenge any adverse decision while avoiding premature adjudication of the disputed questions concerning the applicant’s Aeronautical Engineering qualification, marks, and eligibility for medical examination.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation dated 8 December 2025 and pass an appropriate speaking and well-reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The OA was accordingly disposed of at the admission stage, with the Tribunal expressly clarifying that it had not entered into the merits of the case.