‘ 1 . > PETITIONER v mm 35m“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) V/ Krishna Kumar Markam, S/o. Shri Kawal Singh Markam, aged about 43 years, R/o. Village —' Dspot Officer,*‘off1ce of Depot Officer (forest), Distt; Dhamtari (C.G.)‘ Nagri, INDIA c9 L ' w.P. (S) No. H3? [2010 t RIT PE‘fTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF i W Bahigaon, Post — Sitanadi, Tahsil — Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) W5 'V E R S U S RESPONDENTS / (1) State of (iihhattisgarh through its Secretary; Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bh'awan, Raipur (C.G.) ’ /(2) Divisionai FOrest Officer, Forest Division (Samanya),' Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Wm m . wcMMW» m igl/Co W m mmmw 1 ‘INKER DIWAKER S.B.: HON’BLE JUS’HCE MR. PRI’! 13~12=2910: Sbri Vinod Dcshmukh, coun’ ‘ Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. for th€ S Grievance of ths petitioner though he is en11't1ed for his regu Gumd, he has been Iegularized on Counsel for the pen'tioner s have completed all the formalities f favour of the petitioner and theref may be permitted to withdraw the to hie a fresh representation bef same may be directed to be decide expeditiously as possible. Counsel for the State submi the fact he cannot make any s Government is willing to regularize on the yost of Forest Guard or objection if the petitioner makes authority concerned. and the accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is that in the event of any represen before respondent No.2 raising for the petitioner. te. the present petition is that 'on on the post of Forest post ofwatchman. e bmits that the respondents r passing necessary order in at this stage the petitioner resent petition with liberty respondent No.2 and the in accordance with law as s that Without ascertaining tement whether the State services of the petitioner not. However, he has no representation before the is decided by it in sposed of with a direction tion nled by the petitioner grievances, the same is [113% shim l ' o o s l ’u e e i 's )Mvjibyi Cc Wt 200 at: WWW WW aaarranm he autllztority concerned in sly as possible. Court hal‘s not expressed any It is made clear that this ‘ opinion on merits of the case aind the? authority concerned wouki be at liberty to decide the n strictlv in accordance with law. expectgd to be decided by t accordance Wifh law as expeditiou :presentau'on of the petitioner #>__ao ,I .. Sd/- xx: ‘ Pritinker Diwaker t Judge wc We We (h