IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1640 (SS) of 2011 Km. Monika Yadav …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that though she was selected as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade but she has not been given appointment. 3. Learned counsels for the respondents state that the present writ petition be disposed of at the admission stage itself with the appropriate direction to the Director of Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (respondent no. 2) to decide the representation of the petitioner. 4. As such, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner moves a representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (respondent no. 2), the same shall be decided by the said authority by passing a speaking order explaining as to why the petitioner though has been selected and has not been given appointment. It shall be decided within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Till such representation is decided by the said authority, one post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade shall be kept vacant for 2 the petitioner, which shall be subject to the decision taken on the representation of the petitioner. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 23.11.2011 Kuldeep