Respondents directed to consider the representation on application forwarding and pass a reasoned order.

The applicant, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Kashmiri, University of Kashmir, applied for the post of Professor at the Central University of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to Employment Notice No. 001/2026 dated 27 March 2026.

As an in-service candidate, he submitted his application and supporting documents to the University of Kashmir for authentication, issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC), and forwarding through the proper channel; the application was acknowledged on 23 April 2026.

The applicant alleged that the University failed to complete the remaining institutional formalities despite repeated requests, thereby placing his candidature at risk.

He was also under suspension in connection with FIR No. 108/2025, with related criminal proceedings pending, and contended that neither the pendency of the FIR nor his suspension constituted an automatic legal bar to processing or forwarding his application.

During the proceedings, the University produced its communication dated 31 July 2026 granting an NOC, subject to the conditions stated therein.

The applicant thereafter limited his prayer to disposal of the application as a representation and consideration of his remaining claims in accordance with law.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s claims concerning authentication, processing, and forwarding of his application for the post of Professor at the Central University of Himachal Pradesh in accordance with law?

Whether the applicant’s suspension and the pendency of criminal proceedings affected the respondents’ obligation to consider his claims, subject to applicable rules and the existence of any legal impediment?

Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by treating it as a representation rather than adjudicating the parties’ rival claims on merits?

Where the applicant limits the relief sought and a subsequent development substantially addresses part of the grievance, the proceedings may be disposed of by directing the competent authority to treat the application as a representation and decide the outstanding claims in accordance with law.

The decision-making authority must consider the relevant documents and applicable rules, associate the affected person with the process, provide an opportunity to submit further material, and issue a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order.

The Tribunal did not finally determine whether the suspension or pending criminal proceedings legally barred the applicant’s candidature; instead, it made the relief subject to the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement and to there being no legal impediment.

The Tribunal noted that the University had subsequently issued an NOC dated 31 July 2026 and that the applicant himself sought limited relief by requesting consideration of the remaining claims as a representation.

In view of that subsequent development, the Tribunal held that keeping the Original Application pending would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits or the rival claims and directed the respondents to examine the applicant’s claims regarding processing and forwarding of his application, along with the annexed documents and the NOC, in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

The direction preserved the respondents’ authority to assess the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement and to determine whether any legal impediment existed, while ensuring procedural fairness through an opportunity to submit further material and a requirement to pass a speaking order.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the applicant’s remaining claims—including his request concerning processing and forwarding of his application for the Professor’s post—along with the relevant documents and the NOC dated 31 July 2026, and afford him an opportunity to place further material on record.

A detailed and reasoned order was to be passed within four weeks from service of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order and communicated to the applicant within one week thereafter.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.