IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1315 of 2008 (M/S) Kavita (minor) under the guardianship of her father Sri Heera Lal, R/O Car Road Rajeevnagar-I, Bindukhatta, Post Office Lalkuan, District Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Ministry of Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondent no.1 and 3. Sri V.K.Bisht, Senior Advocate, with Sri B.S.Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Examination Board. Date August 01, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 and 3 as well as Sri V.K.Bisht, Senior Advocate with Sri B.S.Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Examination Board. Heard. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct the Practical Examination of Home Science and Science subjects of the petitioner and thereafter to declare her result. According to the petitioner, she appeared in the High School Examination 2008 conducted by the respondent no. 2-Board as a private candidate in Hindi, Sanskrit, Home Science, Science and Social Science subjects. Practical examinations of Home 2 Science and Science subjects were to be conducted separately after the regular written examinations were over and for that, the students have to be informed by publication of notice in the newspaper. The grievance of the petitioner is that she resides in a very remote area of Bindukhatta, where there is no circulation of any newspaper and the petitioner was under the impression that the notice of dates would be given by registered post. Since the petitioner had no notice of the date of practical examinations, she could not appear in the same. A copy of the mark-sheet has been annexed as Annexure No.2 and according to the petitioner, she had passed in all the subjects in written examinations. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made a representation before the Examination Board on 10-6-2008 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) and the same is still pending. It has been urged that the ends of justice would be subserved if a direction is given to the respondent no.2-Board to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. Prayer is innocuous. Accordingly, the respondent no.2-Examination Board is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10-7- 2008 (copy Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) expeditiously as far as possible. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5