HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S'l N0.1900 OF 200S PETITIONER Kt5! £.. &t. 3. Prem Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Bisambhar Ram Sahu, aged about 57 years, R/o viliage Jaisakarra, Post Charama, District Kanker Utter Ba-star (CG). versus State of Chhattisflarh, through the Secretary, Forest Dspartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (CG). Manaflinfl Director, Chhattisgarh Forest Development Corporation Limited, Shankar Nagar Road, Lokas PSaza, Raipur (CG). S.K, Banchhor, Project Ranger, C.G. State Development Corporation Ltd., Project Mandal, Ambikapur, District >arguja (CG). C.P. Singh, Project Ranger, C.G. State Development Corooration Ltd., Project Dlstrict Sarguja (CG), R.K. Tiwan, Project Ranger, C.G. State Development CorporatJQn Ltd., Project Mandal Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Ornprakash Mishra, Project Ranger, C.G. itaie Daveiopment Corporation Ltd., Project Panabars, Dlstrict Rajnandgaon (CG). 7. Satish Kumar Tiwari, Project Ranger, jndustriai Plantation Mandal, Korbe, District Korba (CG). 8. A.K. Ambastha, Project Ranaer, Industrial Plantation Unit, Project Mandal, District Sarguja (CG). 9. J.B. Chawda, Project Ranger, Project Mandai, Ambjkapur, District Sarguja (CG). 10; -Santosh Kumar Jain, Project Ranger, industria! Plantation Mandai, Korba, District.Korba(CG). 11. Sharad Rathore, Project Ranger, Panabars, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 12. Kishun Ram Sinha, Project Ranger, C.G. Stats Development Corporation Ltd., Project Mandai District 13. J.P. Badssha, Project Ranger, C.G. State Development Corporation Ltd., Project Manda! Kawardha, DIstrict Kawardhi (CG). 0('i/rit petition under Artfcle 226 of the Constifcition of Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. :- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counse! for the petlttoner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. \i. (Passed on this 11"' day of April, 2009) VVi'th the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the partiss. the petition is heardfinatly. 2) Leamed counse! appearing for the petifioner submits that the petitioner is senior to the respondents No. 3 to 13 herein. Despits being senior, the petitioner has no{ besn promoted to the post of Project Ranger without any rhyme or reason. The petitioner has made an application/ representation to the respondent No.2 on 17-3-2009 (^inexure- P/3), which is pending consideration and no order has been on the said rspresentetiorif'application. 3) Be that as if may, the petitioner is not in a position to know asto how he has superseded when -accordinfl to the petitioner he is senior to the respondents No.3 to 13 who wsre promoted. It is an obligatfon of the respondent authorities to conslder such represenSation/appIication anc appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 4) At this junctyre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submifs that the petitioner does not want to contest the mattsr on merit, at this stage. However, learned counse! pray's that the respondent No.2 may be directed to consider fhe pending representation of the petitioner wifhin a period. -5) In view of the foregoing, it is and expedient to dlrect the respondent No.2 to consider and-decide the representation/appticaSQn of the petitioner and appropnate ordere in accordance with law, on its own msrits, as earty as possible preferably within a period of six weeks the date ot of a COE thlsorder. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition stands aisposed of. ^sOwTI Sd/- Satisfa K. Agnihotn Judge