Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 10 CAT CK 3569

Sandeep vs Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad · Decided on 12 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) · Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 1172 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 423 words

Per Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member J.:-

Heard Shri Manu Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned Counsel for the respondents at the admission stage.

2.

This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:-

8.

(a) To quash the Notification dated 24.09.2026 issued by respondent-5, to the extent it notifies the single post of Senior Technical Assistant ‘B’ (STA-B) as reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidates (ST).

b)

To direct the respondents to issue fresh Notification Notifying the single post of Senior Technical Assistant B (STA-B) for unreserved category, open for all within stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

c)

Respondents may be directed to take appropriate decision on the representations dated 24.09.2026 and 25.09.2026 followed by representation dated 28.09.2026 submitted before respondent-3 by the applicant, within stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Tribunal.

d)

Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

e)

Award the cost of this application in favour of the applicant.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the representation of the applicant dated 24.09.2026, which is at Annexure-1, is pending before the respondents, but the respondents have neither shown any consideration nor any order has been passed on the said representation. He further submits that he would satisfy, if a direction is issued upon the respondent concerned to dispose of the said pending representation of the applicant, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within stipulated time as fixed by this Tribunal.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if a direction is issued for disposing of pending representation of the applicant, in accordance with law, within stipulated time.

5.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and without going into the merits of the case, instant Original Application stands disposed of with a direction upon the competent Authority amongst the respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant dated 24.09.2026, which is at Annexure-1 to this original application and to pass an appropriate decision, by way of reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6.

No order as to costs.

7.

Pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of.