•sn^n(r BEN^ ^ % ^.., ^.... •:-'; ^- •" 6-»& 1 •^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.fS)No. '7lr2?'>/2010 PETITIONER ^^t^0"' ^•^x''^"" ^-'yy-"" '^;-"'" RESPONDENTS Tularam Dhruv, S/o. Shri Jai Singh Dhruv, aged about 38 ^. }^\0y^ years, R/o. Village - Tumbahara, Post 85 Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 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 K -^- I-HC-22 ^5c[ ^|<4ld<Lt, ^Ti1^'l<o. fa<ni^ll< *<1+<C11 $b^ich sirt^T xra^? ^....U..fc^..A..-.^3^ IN^ST' 3?ni^T^T Iqii<=t) 3TT|[?T 5^^i<^ <M(ia '^ 3^?i-^n^R ^rf^r S.B.: HON»BLEJUSTICB MR. PRI| 07-12-2010. counlsel Shri Viaod Deslzmukh, Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaa, P,I| Grievaiice of fhe petitioner i though he is entitled for his regiite Guard, he has been regularized on cbl14{<n<fll ^I7TT^ff ^ 1^1ccrl' <F31^K ^ sri^R ^3:^^T TINKBR DIWAKER for the petitioner. . for the State. i|a fhe present petition is that giil^ri^ation on the post of Forest |the post ofwatchman. Counsel for fhe petitioner s(uibmits that the respondents have coinpleted aU fhe formalities ^>r passing uecessary order m favour offhe petitioner and therefc}re at this stage tihie petitioiier niay be pennitted to wittadraw fhe| to file a fresh reprcsentation befc) saxne inay be directed to be decid^d ia accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, present petition with liberty re respondent No,2 and the Coiuisel for the State subia|its that wifhout ascertaining fhe fact he cannof xnake any s] Gtovemnient is witUng to reguladzej •atexnent whether the State ftie ser^ices of fhe petitioner on the post of Porest Giiard o^ not. However, he has no objection if the petitioner makes | a representation before the aufhority conceraed and the ^aiae is decided by it m accordaace with law, Accordiagly, the petition is jdisposed of with a direction that m the event of ariy represei^tation filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 raising ^iis grievaaces, the same is [Tft^ ^R^^ § -r 's-^t ^l^ld^ . ^ftwn^, fa<ni^y 3'IT^T 'tR^ ^i^di -g^q^—•••"*'"*••—•————^F^ 200 '^^ST' STI^T^T f^ii^ CT^?T 5^^i<=b ^rfi^T t- 3^?T ^TrTr^R: ^rf^T expected to be decided by accordaace with law as expeditioi|isly It is xaade clear tfaat fhis opiaion on merits of tlie case would be at Uberty to decide fhe starictiy ia accordance with law. cM^fci<fll '^FRTf ^ ft^ iPsi^K ^T 3Tf^R CT^T ^he autliority concemed ia as possible. |Court has not expressed aay laad the authority concemed l^presentation of the petitioner Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tft^ y^.