JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India-first respondent and Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-respondents 3 and 5 and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 6 to expedite the relieving proceedings, and to relieve the petitioner from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of Uttar Pradesh; and a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2, 3 and 5 to complete the relieving procedure within three months. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) on 31.08.1991 in the Government Inter College, Pipli, District Pithoragarh. He was thereafter promoted as a Lecturer (Hindi) in the Government Inter College, Mangoli, Nainital. At the time of bifurcation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner claims to have given his option to be transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh, as his permanent address was in Sultanpur district of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the petitioner's case that he is a member of the Scheduled Castes; and he had submitted a representation on 08.02.2012, for being allotted to the State of Uttar Pradesh, on the ground that the benefit of reservation, which he and his children would get as members of the Scheduled Castes, was confined only to the State of Uttar Pradesh, and such benefits were not available to him in the State of Uttarakhand. The Chief Education Officer, Nainital is said to have informed all Block Education Officers, by letter dated 12.06.2015, that both the State of Uttarakhand and the State of Uttar Pradesh had agreed for the transfer of government servants, and had invited applications in a prescribed format. The petitioner claims to have submitted his application in the prescribed format, and his application to have been forwarded by the Principal of the College. The petitioner's grievance is that his representation has not been considered till date. 4. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would fairly state that, since the relief sought for by the petitioner is limited to his representation being considered, the fourth respondent would consider the same at the earliest. 5. The petitioner's grievance is that his representation has not been considered till date. 4. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would fairly state that, since the relief sought for by the petitioner is limited to his representation being considered, the fourth respondent would consider the same at the earliest. 5. In the light of the submission made by Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, suffice it, instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending on the file of this Court, to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law, pass appropriate orders thereupon, and communicate his decision to the petitioner at the earliest, and in any event within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on whether or not the petitioner is entitled to be allotted to the State of Uttar Pradesh since these are all matters for the respondents to consider in accordance with law. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.