JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this WPST under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated January 4, 2013 is questioning an order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated April 17, 2012 disposing of his OA No.1132 of 2011. The order of the Tribunal is quoted below:- "Affidavit of service is filed. Let it be kept on record. No one appears on behalf of the State Respondents. The present application is filed by the applicant for absorption in the office of S.D.O, Kandi as Group ­ D employee, though, he worked more than ten years. After going through the application along with enclosures we dispose of the present application with direction to the authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 to dispose of the present application along with enclosures treating as representations within twenty (20) weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within four (04) weeks thereafter."
(2.) A copy of the OA has been produced with the WPST. In para.3 of the OA the petitioner gave the particulars of the order questioning which he filed the OA. Relevant part of para.3 of the OA is quoted below:- "The applicant had rendered his service in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kandi just before filing the application in this Hon'ble Tribunal and subsequently pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the prayer of absorption was rejected by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kandi dated 04.08.2011 which is the subject matter of the challenge in this present application." In the OA the petitioner made a specific prayer for setting aside of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer dated August 4, 2011 questioning which he filed the OA. It is evident that the Tribunal disposed of the OA without due application of mind. It did not say anything about the order impugning which the OA was filed.
(3.) WE are unable to appreciate the manner in which the Tribunal disposed of the OA. The Tribunal should not pass such mechanical order as the impugned one directing consideration and disposal of representation; for mechanical orders are bound to generate unnecessary future litigations. It should not direct anyone to treat an OA as a representation as well; for it amounts to unauthorised delegation of its powers, because only it is empowered to decide an OA.;