Selection cannot be finalized until the applicant’s representation is decided by a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicant applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Business Studies/Management Studies, pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2026 dated 1 January 2026 issued by the Islamic University of Science & Technology.

She challenged subsequent addenda/corrigenda which allegedly altered the notified selection criteria by restricting credit for research publications to publications indexed in Scopus/Web of Science and by withdrawing the requirement of two years’ experience.

The applicant contended that her research publications and professional experience were not considered and that she was declared ineligible in the Preliminary Screening Report.

She also relied on her prior engagement as an Assistant Professor in the University and her alleged inclusion in an earlier selection process.

During hearing, however, she limited her prayer and requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation and decided by the respondents in accordance with law.

The respondents did not oppose disposal of the matter with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s challenge to the addenda/corrigenda, the Preliminary Screening Report, and her alleged non-consideration for the post of Assistant Professor as a representation in accordance with law.

2. Whether the selection for the post should be restrained from being finalized until the applicant’s representation is decided.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a representation concerning eligibility and selection must be considered in accordance with the applicable rules and decided through a reasoned and speaking order.

It also applied the procedural principle that, where an applicant limits the relief sought and the respondents do not oppose such disposal, the matter may be concluded by issuing appropriate directions without adjudicating the merits.

No specific statutory provision, regulation, or judicial precedent was cited or examined in the order; the Tribunal expressly refrained from making findings on the merits of the eligibility and selection disputes.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the addenda/corrigenda unlawfully altered the original advertisement, whether the applicant satisfied the applicable eligibility criteria, or whether her publications and experience ought to have been awarded marks.

Since the applicant confined her request to consideration of her grievance as a representation, and the respondents accepted disposal with appropriate directions, the Tribunal adopted a limited procedural remedy.

It directed the respondents to examine the Original Application and accompanying documents under the applicable rules and to issue a reasoned and speaking order.

To preserve the effectiveness of that consideration, it also directed that the selection process not be finalized in the meantime.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as the applicant’s representation and decide it in accordance with law and applicable rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks of receiving the order, provided no legal impediment existed.

The respondents were further directed not to finalize the selection for the post until the representation was decided.

No order as to costs was made.