IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 23 of 2008 Sushil Kumar and another .……… Petitioners. Versus Director of Education and others .………. Respondents. Present: Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for respondent No. 9. Date of decision: 01-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners states, that the petitioners will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 i.e. the Director of Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, requiring him to take a final decision on the representations made by the petitioners, copies whereof have been collectively appended to this writ petition as annexure No. 5. 2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 states, that he has no objection to the proposal made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 1 i.e. the Director of Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, to take a final decision on the representations filed by the petitioners, copies whereof have been collectively appended to the instant writ petition as annexure No. 5. It would be appreciated, if respondent No. 1, while arriving at a final conclusion, passes a well-reasoned speaking order. Respondent No. 1 shall dispose of the aforesaid representations by passing an order within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 4. The instant writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 01.04.2010 01.04.2010 Amit