^—- 6 Cl^f. IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S) No.^-Ljl ^/2010 .S.^l* ^.^^ PETITIONER ^^w^vy" Parmanand Sahu, S/o. Shri Guharam Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o. Mukam & Post - Nagri, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS V E R S US (1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, 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 Fs>'~<^.\ ^\ ^Sf^FH^R, '^f^FT?, t^ray ^U.e.(s).y.te..^.%f^l WH^l^^ll^b 'fN^?" STI^T^T '^[w^Tii'^ ^^icb yfia ^.B.: HON?BLB JUSTICE MR. PRITtNKER DIWAKER 115-12-2010: 37T^T ^<H^R'HfiH Shri S.P»K£de,counsel for the Shri Smita Ghai, P.L. for the ^tate tte Grievaiice of the peti.tioner in ] jtliough he is entitled for his regularijzation puard, he has been regularized on Shri Kale subnxits that fhe ^ such regularization order on the po^t ^em.airis that the regulari.zation orde^ Counsel for the petitioner su| tpave completed aU tlie foiTaalities fo] favour oftlie petitioner and fherefor^ ^aay be peiinitted to witlidraw the ^ [o lile a fresli represeiitation befor^ ^ame niay be directed to be decided) ^xpeditiously as possible. Counsel for fhe State siibiiiit^ fche fact h.e cannot rnake auy )vemmeiit is wiUing to regularize t m the post of Forest Giiard or <|)bjection if the petitioner inakes ^iuthority concemed and tiie ^ccordance with law. { s ^OTfepN ^TTR^ff "^ ftc2t Tf^K I? atf^FT 3T?^T etitioner, tiie preseBt petition is fb.at on tbe post of Forest post ofwatclTHiaii, stitioner has not. ffled any t of Wa.tchm.axi' but th.e fact has already been pa.ssed. ^mits tli.at th-e respon.d.ents pa.ssm.g necessary ori.er in a.t fhis stage tiie petitioner •resent petition with liberty respondent No,2 and the .in accoi'dao.ce with law as that wifhout ascertaiiiin^ staltemeiit whettier the State ]ie services of tb..e petitioner |n.ot, 'However, he ha.s no representa.tion. before th.e sa^is.e i.s decided by it -iii a! ^.y [Tfr^ 'r^3^I 'gCI-KC-22 -^ •ysET ^ra^pT, ^ftwT^, "^"^ray 3TT^T 'q^? 'WT^TT ^h^lcb***""********"*""'"**** *'<**<'?T^ 20° '^•^?" Q^ CT^I^T f^r1W 3TT^l 9b^ich •yfi<T ^ Accoi'diBgly, the petltion is| that in. fhe event of aiiy represe3{i.tation before respondent No.2 raisixig expected to be decided by accordaiice with law as expeditiou^ly disposed of with. a d.irecti.oii filed by fhe petitio:aer jhis grievaiiccs, fhe saiiie is a.utliority concerned ixi as possible. tbe It is raade clear that this oproion on merits of the case £ would be at liberty to decide the strictly ni accordan-ce witih law aA position aod fhe statenient niade poiirt has not expressed aixy ^iid the authority conceraed r^prese-n.ta.tion of the petitioner ^r veriiying the correct factual ^t the bar. — .L. <=hl^4lv1 ^TN^f °^lTC2t <p5i^l< ^ ^rf^m 3??^i Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [Trt^ '^3^