Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present special appeal has been against the order of learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner appellant directing him to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before the Joint Director of Education within two weeks and Joint Director of Education was directed to dispose of the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and perusing the record of the office of the District Inspectors of Schools and to decide the representation by means of reasoned and speaking order according to law within a period of six weeks from the date the representation is made. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant petitioner has preferred the present special appeal.

3. In short, the brief facts giving rise to the matter in controversy are that the petitioner was initially selected on the post of Lecturer (History) by the Commission and was appointed in Government Inter College, Shree Nagar, Garwal. By that time, the State of Uttarakhand had not come in existence and the same was in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.P. The advertisement for selection and appointment on the post of Principal in different inter colleges of the State of U.P. was made prior to the separation of Uttarakhand State out of U.P. The petitioner consequently submitted his application form and after due procedure, was selected by the Commission. The placement of the petitioner after due selection process was shown in Baraili Inter College Barauli Rao, District Aligarh alongwith respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 with a view to take advantage was taking extension of time before the Management/ Principal for was submission of joining. The matter relating to selection was challenged in 2003 before Hon’ble Court by means of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition and by connecting several matters in a bunch of several cases. Which was allowed by the order of Hon’ble Court. The matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and order maintaining status quo was passed in 2008. The Apex Court passed a decision holding that process in pursuance to the advertisement of Commission is valid one and departmental authorities had initiated the process of selection of placement of the selected candidates. On 17.8.2008 the management of the institution asked respondent No. 5 for submitting joining, failing which candidate No. 2 was offered appointment. On 16.10.2008 respondent No. 3 District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to respondent No. 5 extending ten days’ time for joining on the post of Principal clearly mentioning that in case of default the candidate at serial No. 2 be offered appointment and joining but no response was given by respondent No. 5 on the said letter. The District Inspector of Schools further extended time for five days to respondent No. 5 with the same condition that in case of default, the candidate at serial No. 2 will be offered appointment and joining but respondent No. 5 did not respond to letter dated 3.11.2008. Hence the District Inspector of Schools directed the Management of the institution for issuing appointment letter in favour of the petition immediately. On 20.12.2008 respondent No. 5 further granted for extension of time for joining on the said post before the Management of the institution. The Manager allowed her six months’ time for joining but the said correspondence between the respondent no 5 and the management was neither communicated to the departmental authorities nor to the petitioner. Hence the District Inspector of Schools sent a letter to the petitioner mentioning therein that despite order the petitioner did not submit his joining and the petitioner appellant was again directed to appear before the institution for his joining vide letter dated 19.2.2009. On 16.12.2009 the Manager of the institution with a view to provide benefit to the Officiating Principal, did not permit the peti