Recruiting authority must decide the MSP-category claim by a reasoned order without prejudging its merits.

The applicant sought consideration of his candidature under the Meritorious Sports Person (MSP) sub-category, in addition to his Scheduled Caste category, for a Group ‘C’ post under DSSSB Advertisement No. 05/2023, Post Code 802/23.

He contended that the advertisement used “SP” in its vacancy tables without defining the abbreviation, although it referred to “Meritorious Sports Persons” in its age-relaxation provisions; he said this ambiguity led him to apply only under the SC category.

After being shortlisted for the next stage with 123.13 marks, he made representations seeking MSP consideration and correction of his online application, but no decision had been taken.

He filed this Original Application seeking relief.

1. Whether DSSSB should consider the applicant’s representations seeking consideration under the MSP sub-category and correction of his existing application.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to be considered under the MSP sub-category or permitted to amend his application.

The Tribunal identified no specific statutory provision, precedent, or legal doctrine as the basis for its order.

It directed the competent authority to consider the applicant’s representations and issue a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

The Tribunal expressly left the merits of the applicant’s claim undecided.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s contention that “SP” was undefined in the advertisement’s list of abbreviations, while the age-relaxation provisions referred to Meritorious Sports Persons, and that a later advertisement expressly used “MSP”.

As the applicant’s representations remained undecided, the Tribunal resolved the matter procedurally by requiring the competent authority to consider them and give reasons.

It did not determine whether the applicant qualified for MSP consideration or could amend his application.

The respondents’ competent authority was directed to consider the representations dated 11 and 28 July 2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with applicable rules and instructions, within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order; the decision was to be communicated to the applicant.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits, and made no order as to costs.