Respondents must decide fresh representations by a reasoned order within six weeks; limitation remains open.

Twenty-three applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging, inter alia, the appointments and cadre allocations of Respondents 9 and 10 in the Department of Social Welfare; their proposed promotion to Senior Superintendent; the alleged deployment of additional Superintendents in the Department of Social Welfare; and the failure to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee for vacancies in the post of Senior Superintendent (Technical) and Superintendent.

The applicants also sought verification of Respondent 10’s appointment by the UPSC and directions for correction of cadre strength and consideration of eligible applicants for promotion.

During hearing, the respondents submitted that the O.A. raised multiple claims and that the appointments under challenge had been made in 2020, thereby raising an issue of limitation.

The applicants stated that they had submitted several representations, including one dated 11 May 2026, which remained pending, and agreed to pursue fresh representations if the respondents were directed to decide them by a reasoned order.

1. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate, at the admission stage, the applicants’ various challenges to appointments, cadre allocations, promotions, cadre strength, and departmental promotions, particularly when the respondents had raised limitation objections.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of fresh representations submitted by the applicants through a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period.

3. Whether the issue of limitation should be finally determined at this stage.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that, where an applicant elects to pursue a limited remedy of consideration of a representation and the respondents have no objection, the Tribunal may dispose of the original application without examining the substantive merits.

The competent authority is required to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the time directed by the Tribunal.

Since the respondents had raised a limitation objection concerning appointments made in 2020, the Tribunal expressly left that issue open for consideration by the competent authority or in any subsequent proceedings.

No statutory provision or precedent was expressly relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal did not examine the legality of the challenged appointments, cadre allocations, promotions, or alleged vacancies.

It noted that the O.A. combined several substantive reliefs and that the respondents had raised a prima facie limitation objection because the appointments dated back to 2020.

In light of the applicants’ submission that their representations, including the representation dated 11 May 2026, were pending, and their willingness to submit fresh representations, the Tribunal adopted a limited procedural course.

With the respondents’ counsel raising no objection, it directed the competent authority to consider the fresh representations and issue a reasoned and speaking order, while avoiding any adjudication on the merits or final determination of limitation.

The applicants were directed to submit fresh representations to the respondents, and the competent authority was directed to carefully consider and dispose of them by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of the representations.

The issue of limitation was expressly kept open.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.