r ^ o^ L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W.P.(S)No.?tl^-? /2010 PETITIONER Chandra Has Sahu, S/o. Shri Sita Ram Sahu, aged about 44 ^' .^.^i^ years, R/o. Post - Farsiya, Tahsil AO\^-S3S-^.^ ~ Na§ri'Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) ^'•\~^ov.^'" J!--'"';^iV'\^.^"" ^.^^'^33. '»'<:'...•••••"'" '^""" v^- RESPONDENTS ^WI^ 7 ^\ •^ ">y^ l-K^i •>«-r*^ VERSUS , (1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretaiy, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division (Samanya), Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (3) Depot Officer, office of Depot Officer (forest), Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T~ XI-HC-22 ^H^T'^T r<riich 3:niF?r ^^iw ^rfin -3-ocT ^|Nld<LI, ^Tl1^JI^, [Gl<ni^y SIT^T "q^r^ ^l+ldl 5h^icb SIT^T "q^r^ _.....U^..^.)...SS&;JLI ^iF ^^y" 31T^T'^n^R: ^rf^T S.B.: HON»BLEJU8TICB MR. PRtTINKER DIWAKBR 07-12-2010; couitisel Shri Vinod Deshiniikh, Shri Vaibhav GoverdhaB., P, Grievance of the petitioner though he is entitled for his reguL Guard, he has been regulanzed OK jui fhe present petition is fhat gul^rization on fhe post of Forest fhe post ofwatchixiaa, C^iuisel for the petitioner ^ have coiapleted all fhe fonBalities favour of fhe petitioner aad there^ inay be permitted to witJidraw fh< to file a fresh representation befj^re same may be directed to be deci^ expeditiously as possible. Counsel for fhe State subddts fhe fact he caiinot niake any ^ Goveranient is wiUiag to regulariz^ on fhe post of Forest Guard 4 objection if the petitioner Diake^ aufhority concemed aad fhe accordaace wifh law. Accorduigly^ fhe petition i^ that ia the event of aay before respondent No,2 raising represe^itatiou <=M^1<rt^t 'RW^f ^ f^^ <Rl^l< ^ ^rf^R a?rr^T for fhe petitioner, L. forthe State. ^ubmits that fhe respondents for passiag necessaiy order ia ^re at this stage the petitioner ? present petition with Uberty respondent No,2 and the ed in accordaace wifh law as uts titiat wifhout ascertamiag ^tatement whether tlie State ? the services of tihie petitioner r not, However^ he has no a representation before the saiae is decided by it iri -t- disposed of with a direction jBled by the petitioxier his grievaaces, the sarne is [Tft^ S.R^^ /' /^ ff flk_ -^ ^ '^ n\ ^- :^ t-HC-22 •3-ET ^|^tid<Ll, ^-di^4^. ^<yii^y ^W^\[ ^h^licb 3TT^?T 'q^T^ .....^fc.^.s'&'..^^ 'I^ST' ^TT^T^T ^jch sni^T 5h^ich <-if^a I- ^TT^T ^<nS[R'Hf^TT expected to be decided by accordaiice wifti law as expeditioi^sty It is made clear fhat this opinion on inerits of the case would Be at liberty to decide the strictly in accordaace witli law. jCourt has not expressed any [aixd the authority concemed ^epresentation of fhe petitioner <=M1M(<n<flrl 'RTR^ff ^ fe^ iPsK^K ^3^R3TT^T lie aufhority conceraed ia as possible. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tft^ S.f<3^