Requirement to Decide Pending Representations via Reasoned Order Regarding Deletion from Selection Panels

The applicant was appointed as a Track Maintainer in N.F. Railway on 20.04.2005. Following a transfer from Lumding to Rangiya Division in 2014, he participated in a screening test on 17.02.2016 and 18.02.2016 for the post of Khalasi Helper (Mechanical Wing) under a 10% annual intake quota.

He was initially empanelled at Sl. No. 7 of the Select List vide Memorandum dated 24.02.2016; however, his name was subsequently deleted from the panel.

The applicant alleged that the deletion occurred without a hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice, and was based on a misapprehension that he was receiving a Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- instead of Rs. 1800/-.

Despite submitting a representation on 04.11.2016 and a legal notice on 14.09.2020, no response was received, leading to the filing of this O.A.

1. Whether the deletion of the applicant’s name from the select panel issued vide Memorandum dated 24.02.2016 was void ab-initio and in violation of natural justice.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide upon the applicant's pending representation and legal notice within a stipulated timeframe.

The court relied on the principles of natural justice and administrative transparency, specifically noting the precedent set in Smt. Swati Chakraborty Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (O.A. No. 280 & 285/2011), upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 462/2013, which mandates an opportunity of being heard before adverse actions regarding empanelment are taken.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the applicant's claims regarding the Grade Pay discrepancy or the legality of his removal from the select list.

Instead, the court focused on the administrative failure to respond to the applicant's grievances. Given the limited prayer made by the applicant's counsel during the hearing—requesting only the disposal of pending representations—the Tribunal found it appropriate to compel the respondents to exercise their administrative duty.

By directing the respondents to treat the O.A. as a supplementary representation, the court ensured that the executive authority would have to formalize its reasoning in a "reasoned and speaking order".

It directed the respondents to consider the pending Representation dated 04.11.2016 and Legal Notice dated 14.09.2020 by treating the O.A. as part of the submission.

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the decision to the applicant within eight weeks of receiving the order copy. Pending M.A.s were also disposed of with no costs awarded.