LAXMI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13. 7. 2007, an advertisement was published in daily newspaper inviting applications for Special B. T. C. Course 2007-08. The petitioner applied for the same. The opposite party No. 5 issued a list on 8. 3. 2008, wherein the petitioner's name finds place. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear in the counselling. On 25. 3. 2008, the petitioner was informed that she was selected for training. As the opposite parties have not sent her training, the petitioner moved a representation. According to her, it is still pending before the authorities concerned. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will move a fresh representation before the authorities concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would suffice if the opposite parties are directed to decide the representation expeditiously. Standing Counsel has no objection to this innocuous prayer. Accordingly, the writ petition, with the consent of parties, is disposed of at the admission stage itself and it is provided that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the opposite party No. 1, in accordance with law, by 15. 1. 2009, if the petitioner moves a representation, within fifteen days from today. It will be open to the petitioner to annex a copy of the representation alongwith this order. .