IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1561 of 2011 Smt. Meena ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. Atul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Atul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. The only contention of the petitioner is that though she has been selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) (Art), yet the marks awarded to her are less than what she was actually liable to procure. She has been given 131.63 marks although she was liable to get four marks more i.e. 135.63. 3. Learned counsel representing the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal as well as learned counsel appearing for the State Mr. N.P. Sah state that the matter be disposed of at this stage with the direction to the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Deharadun to decide the representation of the petitioner, which is already pending before the 2 Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, according to the petitioner. 4. Writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is, however, directed that till the representation of the petitioner is decided, one post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) (Art) shall be kept vacant for the petitioner. 5. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.11.2011 Avneet