JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to 4 appoint him on the post of Anskalik Nalkoop Operator. 2. The petitioner made an application for appointment to the post of Anskalik Nalkoop Operator in the Irrigation department before the respondent No. 1 The application was filled on the ground that tubewell No 92 M has been constructed by the Irrigation Department on chak No. 227 belonging to him. He permitted the Irrigation Department to construct the same on an assurance being given to him that he will be given appointment in the Department. 3. The minimum requisite qualification was only Intermediate. In the proforma of the application the following declaration was to be given : "Neither he is graduate not he is reading in a graduates class." According to the petitioner the respondent No. 5 who was given the appointment was actually studying in B.A. Part II in Laxmi Narayan Degree College, Sirsa, Allahabad, at that time. According to him on account of this fact that the respondent No. 5 was continuing his studies he was disqualified to be appointed. Only on this ground the petitioner prayed that the appointment of the respondent No. 5 be quashed and in his place he may be appointed as Anskalik Tubewell Operator. 4. On 17.7.1990 the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent No. 1 which is still pending. 5. So far this Court is concerned, it cannot direct the respondent to issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner on account of the oral undertaking given to him nor the appointment of the respondent No. 5 can be quashed on the ground that on the date when he made application for appointment he was student of B.A. Part II. Even if this fact was not disclosed in his application, that will not render his appointment illegal. At the most that may be treated to B.A. irregularity. 6. In my opinion that writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, since the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent No. 1, he may peruse the remedy before him. It will be in the interest of justice if a suitable direction is issued to be respondent No. 1 to decide the representation within a reasonable period. 8. 7. However, since the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent No. 1, he may peruse the remedy before him. It will be in the interest of justice if a suitable direction is issued to be respondent No. 1 to decide the representation within a reasonable period. 8. Accordingly direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of three months the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 9. A copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week on payment of usual charges.