IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No.: 82 of 2009. Decided on: 21.02.2011. __________________________________________________________ Vidya Sagar … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Petitioner has already made a representation for the redressal of his grievance. Same was rejected vide Annexure A-4, dated 6.10.2001 by the District Education Officer, Una. Annexure A-4 is neither detailed nor speaking. Once the petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance, same was required to be decided by passing a detailed and speaking order. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4, dated 6th October, 2001 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation afresh by passing a speaking/ 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - detailed order, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. February 21, 2011. (sck).