^ i 2 ^N".-'\^''' ^ ^.-' ^.^.f^ ^ , -yTTi^- tNOLE BEHGH .» t . .^' r^^ l/' IN THE mOH COUKT OF CHHATTISGARH ~y AT: BILASPUR PETITIONER: W.P.fS)No. (?-i^OF2010 Ramakant Kaushik, aged 56 years, son of Shri Shyamlal Kaushik, Forest Guard, resident of village Hafa now at village and post Sakri, tahsil Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department ofForest, Raipur (C.G.). .2. The Conservator ofForest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^Rfi^r ^T ^ICD 'WT^l^r'sn^ *S8*l^li ^i^ll^i T^l ^i^i^^i, ^Til^^j^, [®s<yii<ui^< .^£&.).^..^{^.^ ^"ti'^200 ^n^r '^RT (<icii^^) yOTW^rfW ^Ti^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohsin Shrivastava. J. 05-08-2010 Shri Somnath Verma, couns^l Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Dept^y Tekam, Panet Lawyer for the State/^espondents Heard. The petitioner has approach| non-inclusion of his name in thd supercession. Case of the petitioner is tha^ Guard on 28-01-1978 whereupon .11 course of time, the petitioner was dated 07-03-1984 and since then, The aforesaid service details are c| copy ofwhichhas been placed on r( that when the gradation list dated.1; name of the petitioner was not inctil submitted by the petitioner on 25-Oj No.2 However, thesame remainedl was not included in the seniority promotion dated 07-07-2010 (Anne^ number of Forest Guards have beer that the name of Forest Guard sho^ 07-07-2010 (Annexure P-4) are tho^ another representation has now 2010 (Annexure P-5). ohN(d4t^ TTR^f ^? 1^^ <M<^K ^siRmsn^ for the petitioner. Advocate General with Shri Vinod on advance copy. d this Court aggrieved on account of seniority list of Forest Guard and he was initially appointed as Coupe }e joined his duties on 02-02-1978. tn t^romoted as Forest Guard vide order |ie has been working in that oapacity. |early reflected from his sen/ice booK, ^cord as Annexure P-1. It is submitted P-06-2009 (Annexure P-2) was issued, |ded whereupon a Tepresentation was lp-2009 (Annexure P-3) to respondent jundecided and name of the petrtioner liist of Forest Guard. Now, order of ^ure P-4) has been issued, by whioh, promoted as Forester. It is submitted ^n from S.No.26 to 41 in order dated who are junior to the petitioner. Yet, made by the petitioner on 12-07- •o^ be|en ^fc^ -—FS/i47—2/2010 -1,00,000. w.)^ -^y^ ^.^^^^N^ XI-HC—78. ^ffWTT (bHlcb 'S'ST T^i^i<n<M,^xii'Hli<o, f®ldiy!j,< . V^.P.^^'^^M/o "?T^ 200 ^n^r 'q^r (^jf^^?) ^n^f ^T f^tN? ^^H^T^T ^MJch h^:- Tumane ^nw^fi^T^^^T ^_^ From the averments made by placed on record, it appears that t inclusion of his name in the seniority lisl In this view ofthe matter, it is inctusion of his name in the seniori considered by the respondent No.2 anc taken within an outer limit ofthree copy of this order tn case, the petiti gradation list of Forest Guard over an S.No.26 to 41 in order dated 07-07-20- authority shali further consider the petit reasonable period. With the aforesaid direction, the ^l^fd^l'l TTFT^ff ^* ft^ Tf^?R '^3?Rm3TT^T :he petitioner and the documents ie petitioner's representation for has not been decided titl date. dir^cted that the petitioner's cSalm for ty list of Forest Guard shatl be the decision on the same shall be mo|iths from the date of receipt of a |oner is accorded seniority in the fcl above those name shown from |0 (Annexure P-4), the respondent foner's case for promotion within a ^tition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge +