IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 821 of 2008 (S/S) (1) Jai Krishan Bahuguna S/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad Bahuguna Village Gadh Post New Barsali District Uttarkashi. (2) Dinesh Singh Panwar S/o Jayandar Singh Panwar R/o Village Kansain Post Joshiyara, District Uttarkashi. (3) Raghuveer Singh Panwar S/o Shri Kishan Singh Panwar R/o Near Reliance Tower Post Joshiyara, District Uttarakashi. (4) Ali Immam Naqvi S/o A.H. Naqvi R/o Naqvi Art Service Bhatwari Road Uttarkashi. …………..Petitioners. Versus (1) Secretary Education, Government of Uttarkashi, Dehradun. (2) Director / Additional Director State Council for Education Research and Training Narendar Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal. (3) District Education Officer, Uttarkashi. (4) Principal, Zila Siksha Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, Badkot, District Uttarkashi. ...……..Respondents. Sri Vinay Kumar and Sri Niranjan Bhatt, Advocates for the Petitioners. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold fresh counseling for the petitioners for Special B.T.C. Training Course as a part of counseling conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.06.2008. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are selected candidates for the Special B.T.C. Training Course for the year 2006-07. Since there were only 33 posts of general category for the district Uttarkashi, the petitioners could not undergo the training. Thereafter, vide advertisement dated 04.06.2008, the selected candidates were invited for State Level Counseling to fill the vacancies in the various D.I.E.Ts. of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is copy of memorandum dated Pra.Shi./03, dated 4th June 2008, which is got published by the Additional Director, S.C.E.R.T., Narendar Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, wherein it is specifically mentioned that it shall be the duty of the D.I.E.Ts. of the concerned District to inform the selected candidates regarding the State Level Counseling scheduled to be held on 17.06.2008 and 18.06.2008. The petitioners’ case is that they were not informed by the D.I.E.T., Uttarkashi, as such they 3 were deprived of participating in the State Level Counseling. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of summarily directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the representations, made by the petitioners to Additional Director, S.C.E.R.T., Narendar Nagar, Tehri Garhwal. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this writ petition is summarily disposed of directing the Additional Director, S.C.E.R.T., Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, to decide the representations dated 25.06.2008, 23.06.2008 and 21.06.2008, made by the petitioners Jai Krishan Bahuguna, Raghuveer Singh Panwar and Ali Immam Naqvi, respectively (copies annexed with annexures 5 and 6 of writ petition) and the one undated by petitioner no. 2 Dinesh Singh Panwar, within a period of one month from the date certified copy of this order is produced before such authority. (Misc. Application No. 5143 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.11.08.2008 NS 4