HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1947 of 2025 (M/S) Sita Ram Pokhriyal .....Petitioner Versus Director, Elementary Education, Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 18.06.2025 of the Election Officer, Education Ministerial Officer’s Association (“Association”), by which the petitioner’s request for recounting has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought certain reliefs including that he had given a representation to the respondent nos. 1 and 2, therefore, they may be directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had contested the election of the President of the Association; the election was conducted on 17-18/06/2025 and the result was declared on 18/06/2025; on the same day, the petitioner moved a representation to the Returning Officer for recounting of votes, but it was rejected on the ground that the result has already been declared and the elected candidate has not agreed to it. 2 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the impugned order records that at the time of counting, the agent of the petitioner did not raise any issue with regard to the counting of votes and the result of the election has already been declared. 5. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what provision, recounting of votes may be done. He has referred to the bylaws of the Association. In clause 12(3), the Rules of Elections have been given. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate any provision, which may permit recounting of votes. Moreover, the impugned order records that the result has already been declared and at the time of counting of votes, the agent of the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to any vote that was cast and counted. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference by this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, since the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent nos. 1 & 2, this Court has no doubt that the authorities concerned shall take a decision on it, in accordance with the rules and the regulations. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 02.07.2025 Avneet/