^ c^^-^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. fS) No. ^1<b/2010 PETITIONER ^^ ^.\ Dwarika Prasad S/o. Shri Ghanshyam, aged about 38 years, R/o. Mukam & Post Dugli, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (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 '.-^A "-^. /J' ^:..<^-.-XI-KC-22' i ^^£^^ ii S^T'oFT ^i^. snt^i 5b^i<=b ^fid ^"a?';^raT^ZT, ^Tfl^4!^, ^<n$<Hy ...W.£..uI.M^^^ '•fe^T" ^RI^I^T^W^ 31T^T ^cfr^R "d^TT S,B.s HON?BLB JUSTICB MR. PRJtTENKBR DIWAKER 16-2,2-2010; Shri S.P.Kale, counsel for f4 Sliii Smita Ghai, P.L. for tli<} 1X1 Grievaiice of fhe petitioner ttiough he is entitled for his s'egul^irization Guard, he has been regularized oc| Shri Kale subniits that tJid such reguiarization order ou tlie remains fhat the regularization dost ordl.er Counsel for fhe petitioner have coinpleted all t±ieformalities favour of the petitioner and theref^re Biay be permitted to withdraw tli< / to file a fresh representation bef^re same may be directed to be decid| expeditioiisly as possible. 'nlr Counsel for the State subnl tihe fact he caanot make auy ^ Goveminent is wUIiag to regzilariz^ on the post of Forest Guard c^ objection if the petitioner makesi authority concemed and the accordance with law. -L Gbl^f<n^lT1 '^F^ff ^ 'fe^st ipsK^K ^'srf^m ^STT^T petitioiier. State. the present petitio.u is that on tb-e post of Forest fhe post ofwatchinao. petitioner has not filed ariy of Watclixaaii but. the fact has ateady been passed< .ubmits tliat the respondents. for passio.g necessary order in at th.is sta.ge the petitioner present petition. with liberty )re'respoudent. No.2 ao.d tlie ?d ia accord.aiice with. law as ^ifs fhat witliout a.scertaming (tateiiient whether the State fhe sen?rices of fhe petitioner not. However, he has no a representation before th.e Isame is decided. by it iri [TN? ^\7-} ^"5g.HC-22: --^;?-' ^•. -: .-' <^-'~;--"" ^TT^T'^T 'f^w^n^ ?fr)^ic^ <M[$a ~?^ "^li^lH<4, ^Tl1^4{r?, t^TRTy 3ni^T ^(^ ^l^dl ^^{cb*—*'—****-*—'^—**0—***'*^-^ 200 'f^^ST' 3?T^['^rfT^ ^cT Accordiagly, the petition i^ that iii the event of aiiy repres€|ntati< before respondent No.2 raisiiigj expected to be decided by accordance with law as e^axpeditioi|.sly disposed of wifh a direction ntation filed by the petitioner his- gri.evao.ces^ tb.e same is the authority concemed ia isly as possible. It is raade clear that this opiiiion on nierits of the case would be at Uberty to decide the ^ stdctlv ro accordauce with law position aiid the statement niade |Coiirf has not exprcssed any |an.d tlie a'lifh.ori.-ty concein.ed |tepi''esentation of th.e petitj.on.er verifying the correct factuai. tit tlie har, ——-—. -— — after <=hS<LI?d4l71 TTR^f "^ ftTst iFsi-^K ^ ^3?f^TH 3TT^T Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tfr^ '^37I