Respondents directed to decide applicant's representation within three months; no merits considered.

The applicant, Priyanka Dogra, joined as an Assistant Plant Protection Officer (Group -B) on December 29, 2014.

The promotional post is Plant Protection Officer, requiring five years of service as an Assistant Plant Protection Officer.

The applicant became eligible for promotion in 2019-2020.

The respondents conducted Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for the post of Plant Protection Officer in 2020 and 2022.

During the 2022 DPC, Sh. Ratan Lal Raiger (SC category) was promoted based on general seniority without reservation benefit, and Sh. Venkateshwarlu Malothu (ST category) was also promoted.

The applicant alleged irregularities in the 2020 and 2022 DPCs, leading Respondent No. 1 to direct Respondent No. 2 to conduct review DPCs for the vacancy years 2020 and 2022 via a letter dated April 18, 2023.

A vacancy for a PPO (SC category) was identified due to Sh. Raiger's promotion without availing reservation benefits.

Despite her eligibility, the applicant was not considered in the 2022 DPC.

The respondents did not conduct the review DPC, prompting the applicant's father to submit a representation in 2023 and a legal notice on February 5, 2025.

The respondents replied on May 13, 2025, stating the matter was under consideration.

An RTI application in June 2025 revealed that clarification was sought from DOPT.

The applicant's father also submitted a representation on April 9, 2025, requesting a review DPC for his daughter.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant's pending claim, including the convening of review DPCs for promotion to Plant Protection Officer, in a time-bound manner.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated April 9, 2025.

The Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 19, grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear applications from persons aggrieved by orders pertaining to service matters of government employees.

The principles of natural justice and administrative law require competent authorities to consider and decide representations from aggrieved parties in a timely and reasoned manner.

The court noted that the applicant's counsel sought a direction for the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated April 9, 2025, in a time-bound manner, with a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents' counsel conceded this "innocuous limited prayer".

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it was appropriate to dispose of the application without delving into the merits of the case, by directing the respondents to address the representation.

This approach allowed for the administrative process to be completed, addressing the procedural grievance without prejudging the substantive claim.

This decision emphasizes that the order should be reasoned, speaking, and in accordance with relevant rules.

No costs were awarded.