Respondents must decide pending representations by a reasoned, speaking order within 45 days.

The applicant applied for various Group ‘D’ posts pursuant to Notification No. 220-E/OpenMkt./RRC/2012 issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Railway.

He qualified the written examination and Physical Efficiency Test, appeared for document verification and medical examination, and was found medically fit.

His candidature was subsequently rejected on the basis of an alleged mismatch in handwriting/signature, relying on the opinion of a Forensic Document Expert.

After challenging the rejection and obtaining liberty from the Delhi High Court, the applicant submitted representations dated 23 December 2022 and 25 October 2023 seeking reconsideration of his candidature in light of various judicial decisions.

The applicant contended that these representations remained pending.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representations dated 23 December 2022 and 25 October 2023 concerning rejection of his candidature on the ground of handwriting/signature mismatch.

Whether the Tribunal should grant the consequential benefits claimed by the applicant without adjudicating the merits of the rejection of his candidature.

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate applications concerning service matters.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

Although the applicant relied upon decisions including Dev Dutt v. Union of India, Sanehad & Ors. v. Union of India, the common order in O.A. Nos. 1121/2015 and batch, and subsequent orders of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not determine the applicability or merits of those precedents at this stage.

Since the applicant asserted that his representations remained undecided, and the respondents consented to disposal of the application at the admission stage, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct administrative consideration rather than examine the merits of the alleged handwriting/signature mismatch or the applicant’s entitlement to consequential benefits.

The direction preserved the respondents’ authority to assess the representations in accordance with law while requiring them to provide a reasoned and speaking decision within a fixed period.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representations dated 23 December 2022 and 25 October 2023, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

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