Respondent Authority Directed to Pass Reasoned Order on Pending Representation for Appointment Within Stipulated Period

The petitioner, Uday Kumar, participated in a selection process for the post of Technician Grade-III pursuant to Employment Notice No. 05/2024 issued by the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL).

After successfully completing the selection procedure, the petitioner sought to join the post but required an extension of the joining time.

The petitioner had previously obtained favorable interim and final orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Guwahati Bench.

Consequently, he submitted a formal representation (Annexure-P/9) to the General Manager (HR Admin), BSPHCL, requesting the issuance of an appointment letter and acceptance of his joining.

Despite the representation being pending, no decision was communicated by the respondent authorities, leading the petitioner to file the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus.

1. Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide on the petitioner’s pending representation regarding his appointment and joining.

The court applied the principle of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to direct public authorities to perform their statutory or public duties.

The court's reasoning was based on the administrative law principle that when a citizen files a representation before a competent authority, the said authority is duty-bound to consider and dispose of it by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable timeframe.

The court noted that the petitioner had successfully completed the selection process and had already obtained legal recourse through the C.A.T.

Counsel for the BSPHCL admitted during the hearing that the petitioner’s representation regarding his appointment was indeed pending and that no decision had yet been taken.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the appointment or the extension of joining time—matters which fall within the primary jurisdiction of the employer—the court focused on the administrative failure to respond to the petitioner's grievance.

The court determined that at this juncture, the appropriate judicial intervention was to compel the respondent authority to exercise its administrative function and provide a clear, legal determination on the pending request.

It directed Respondent No. 4, the General Manager (HR Admin), Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd, Patna, to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation in accordance with the law.

The court ordered that a reasoned and speaking order must be passed within 60 days from the date of production of the court's order.