Sanskrita Rawat vs Chandra Singh Gwal

Hon''ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. M.C. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner/ applicant and Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent.

The petitioner failed to qualify the examination and the reasons assigned by the petitioner is that her marks have been wrongly calculated and the answer given in the answer key was wrong. The petitioner consequently, filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 951 (SS) of 2011, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.7.2011, which reads as follows:-

Heard Mr. M. C. Bansal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the provisional result of L.T. Exam. 2010 (Annexure No. 6) and the cut-off marks list (Annexure No. 7) related with the subject Art (Code-07) declared by the respondent No. 3 on 1.6.2011.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondent No. 2 since 8-6-2011. He has confined his submission to the point that direction be given to respondent No. 2 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner, by a speaking and reasoned order. Prayer made is innocuous.

The respondent No. 2, Director, Schools Uttarakhand Nanoorkhera Dehradun, is directed to take decision on the representation of the petition, Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, by a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Consequently, the matter has been heard and the representation was decided by the Director Schools Education vide order dated 15.10.2011 by giving reasons. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order of this Court has been complied with in its letter and spirit and no contempt is made out.

Contempt petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notices discharged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order passed by the Director School Education is wrong. In case the impugned order dated 15.10.2011 is wrong, the petitioner has always a remedy to challenge it before the appropriate forum.