IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10137 of 2008. Decided on: 23.03.2011. _________________________________________________ Tek Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the present petition in order to enable his client to make a representation to respondent No.1 for the redressal of his grievance. 2. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to make 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - a representation to the Secretary (Education) for the redressal of his grievance by taking all the grounds, which he has already taken in this petition. The representation to be made by the petitioner shall be decided by the Secretary (Education) by passing a speaking order, within a period of one month after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The Secretary (Education) while deciding the representation shall also take into consideration whether any person junior to the petitioner has been appointed or not. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 23, 2011. (sck).