IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 1641 of 2011 Hemant Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Present: Mr. B. N. Molakhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bihst, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. B. N. Molakhi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner was a candidate for an examination known as Teachers Eligibility Test (from hereinafter referred to as “TET”). The petitioner now contends that there were the defects in OMR sheets. Thereafter he moved a representation to rectify the defects in OMR sheets committed by him. All the same, the petitioner has been declared disqualified although according to the petitioner the answer key issued on the website he has secured 75 per cent marks and has qualified as such. A representation to this effect is already pending with the concerned authority. 3. Based on this contention of the petitioner, the concerned authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by assigning reason as to why the petitioner has been declared disqualified within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11 2011 . Kuldeep