IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.36 of 2006 (S/S) Smt. Laxmi Hatwal ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 7th October, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent authorities to give regular appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi Language) in National Public Junior High School, Nagwad, District Chamoli, after giving him relaxation from the training of trained teacher as per the Government order dated 12.01.1996, issued by the Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Garhwal Division, Pauri. 3. Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities have already given the relaxation in a matter of one Km. Sushila Pant but they are not granting such relaxation to the petitioner. He submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to Km. Sushila Pant’s case. On the other hand Shri Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State 2 submitted that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the Government order dated 12.01.1996. 4. At this, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Rajendra Dobhal prayed that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Education, Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the Government order dated 12.01.1996 and also by considering the fact that in identical circumstances benefit of relaxation has been given to Km. Sushila Pant. The learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Vinay Kumar, states that the respondents have no objection, in case such direction is issued. 5. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Education, Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 6. Urgency application (I.A. No.3813 of 2010) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 07.10.2010