IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL W.P. No. 787 (S/S) of 2010 Dinesh chandra S/o Mahendra Dutt … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the record of written examination including the answer book of petitioner before this Court for comparing the questions, answers and allotted marks and direct the respondents to allot total 37 marks to the petitioner after allotting him 10 marks for the correct answers against the question Nos. 39, 5,6,7 and 8 and also promote him to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) ( Ordinary Grade), by making necessary amendment in the impugned merit list and completing subsequent process of interview and practical test. The law of mandamus is well settled that no writ of mandamus could be entertained for the inaction on the part of the authority concerned and for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has made a representation before the authority concerned. Before making the representation the petitioner has sought information regarding those questions under the R.T.I. Act and inspection of answer book was allowed to the him by the respondent/Corporation. 2 The petitioner has stated that on inspection he found that though the answers of question Nos. 5,6,7,8 and 9 are absolutely correct, but the respondents have wrongly taken them as wrong and did not allot the marks against those question-answers and he has been deprived of by 10 marks. Since the petitioner has also filed his representation, (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) before respondent No.4 and the same is still pending, therefore, without entering into merit of case the respondent No.4 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order, as to whether the assertions of the petitioner are correct or not, within a period of four weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Dated: 8-9-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB 3 4