t^-\e^) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 W.P. (S) No. -^ ^(7^ /2010 PETITIONER ^ih'&y^ ;:^';^ife^- ,^^-;; •' •\.u-^-""" Ghurau Ram Netam, S/o. Shri Pancham Netam, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village - Sonjhari, Post - Singhpur, Tahsil ~ Magarload, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) p^ ^^^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS (l)-^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 r~ ^"^f ^TRT^PT, '^ft?FR, f^TRiy ^rtt^T "q^^ ^"^•(5}~1^1^l('0 200 ^{THdl O^^ich ^^r* 33n^T'^r f^fW^T^T 9b^i<:h'^ft?r 1 16-12-2010: 3TI^T'^C^TW^n t.B.: HON?BLB JUSTSCB MR. PRnllNKER DIWAKER Shri S.P,Kale, counsel for the Sl-m Smita Ghai, P.L. for the. i petitioner, Itate. regiil.ai'l.zMion Grievaiice of the petitioner inj Jthough he is entitled for his puard, he has been regularized on i^ Shri Kale submits that the jsuch regulaiization order on tlie po< |remains that the regulariz/ation ordej Coiuisel for the petitioner su] |iave completed aM the foi'maUties fo| favour of fhe petitioner aiid therefbr^ tBay be permitted to withdraw the ^o file a fresh represeiitation. befor^ |$aine may be directed to be decide^ 'xpeditiously as possible. Coiinsel for the State subiiiit; tlie fact he coimot make anv Soveranient is wii,.tfaig to reg'iiladze )H the post of Forest: Guard or >bjection if tSie petitioner makes ^.i.i.tjiority concero.ed and the sa accordance with law. chl^(d4lT1 ~^^ ^ f^t ^T^R ^s^prsn^r the present petiti.ori i.s t'hat OB. tlie post of Forc'st le post ofw8.tchin.an, ^etitioiier has n.ot ffled any •t of Watehnian but the fa.et has already been passed, ^paits tha.t the respondeuts passnig necessary order in at this stage the petitioner )reseiit petition witls. Uber^ respondent. P\To/2 ao.d the ,in a.ccord.ance witii law as' th.at without ascerteiiiio.g statt.em.eiit whellier the State b.e seivices of th.e petitioner jnot. However, he has no represesita.tion befbre th.e 4a.e i.s decided by it in !„.. [-^ '^'?I <^ -^'^f""" fl (1^::. I" ^s;^'. IC-22 'S^ -u.t^!d<4, ^Tl1<-i^<o, 1^T;Hy 3?T^W ^^ ,.(i.C$^ -rM7-^/(0, ^..^...........^...^..............^ 200 ^raoiT ^^{sfr '1^[8?' ^Ti^T'^I k^w ^j^ 5b^ich <-i[^a 3?T^?r'^TT8^ Trft^T Accordingly^ the petltion is fhat. in. the event of any before respondent .No.2 raisitig |: expected. to be decided. by tl^ a.ccordance witb. law as e.xpeditio-ii41y jdisposed of with a directioD. represerj!|tatiou filed by tta.e petitioner }iis grievances, the saitie is ^.e a.uth.ority - concero.ed iri a.s possible. It is niade clear fliat this opniion on merits of the case would be at libert;^ to decide ihe suictly iu accord.ance witli law position aiid the statement made a| aftdr l-.^ ^H^feFfrT 'HFRti ^ ft^ ^f^^K '^srf^TH^n^i Cj^ou-rt has not expressed aay ttie a.ii.th.ori.ty concemed re^presentation of tli.e petiti.oB.er verifym.g the correct fa.ctual the bar. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tt^ '.*f^