THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1362 of 2006 1. Man Singh Rana S/O Shri Inder Singh Rana, Village Kamar, P.O. Mameri, District Uttarkashi. 2. Satyapal Singh Parmar, S/O Kedar Singh Parmar, Village Dhungi, P.O. Shiguni (Dunda), District Uttarkashi. 3. Shalendar Pal Singh, S/O Sri Parwal Singh Parmar, Village Thati Dhanari P.O. Thati, District Uttarkashi. 4. Smt. Savita Pawar, D/O Sri Phool Chand, C/O P.S.Pawar, Sahayak Nideshak Aalp Bachat Collectorate, District Uttarkashi. 5. Smt. Rajni Rana, D/O Dabbal Singh, C/O Gopal Medical Store, Main Bazar, District Uttarkashi. 6. Shiv Raj Singh Gusai, S/O Shri Vikram Singh, Baragadi, District Uttarkashi. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Education (Basic) Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Director, School Education, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. Additional Director, State Council of Education, Research, And Training, Uttarkashi, Tehri Garhwal (SCERT) 4. District Basic Education Officer (BSA) District Uttarkashi. 5. Principal Zila Siksha Avam Prashiksham Sansthan Badkot, District- Uttarkashi. ... Respondents. Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri R.C.Arya, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. Dated September 18, 2006. PC:(Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.) (Interim Relief Application No. 11755 of 2006) Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners files Supplementary Affidavit today. Taken on record. Petitioners have claimed their admission to Special B.T.C. Training on the basis of the order dated 5-12-2003 passed by this Court and it has been alleged that interim order has already been passed by favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1254 of 2006 (M/S), Km. Anandi Rana and others Vs. State and others vide order dated 7-09-2006 and the case of the present petitioners is stated to be on the same footing. They have claimed admission on the ground of parity. By way of supplementary affidavit it was stated that the petitioners have already applied for the Special B.T.C. Training following the advertisement dated 9-7-2006 in time. The petitioners have submitted that they are having B.Ed. degrees from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak Haryana, HNB University Garhwal and Lucknow University and it is alleged that the said B.Ed. courses are recognized by the N.C.T.E. and the University Grants Commission. B.T.C. Training Course by extending them age relaxation. In the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Dinesh Gahtori Pointed out that this Court has decided Writ Petition No. 1254 of 2006 (M/S) Km. Anandi Rana and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others vide order dated 07- 09-2006 and the facts of the present case are almost identical to that case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the representation Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, made by the petitioners has not been decided so far in the instant case. I have perused the order dated 7-9-2006 passed in WP (M/S) No. 1254 of 2006, Km. Anandi Rana and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of and the respondents be directed to decide the representation Annexure No.9. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 20-6-2006 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) within a period of four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the order passed by this Court dated 05-12- 2003 in Writ Petition No. 5576 of 2001 (S/S) bearing Old No. WP No. 33931 of 1997. All the applications stand disposed of. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP