'i^ ^ c^, ^9. 03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) .x f^\ 14 »T, ^l-^llE B£N^^ PETITIONER ^.r. W.P. (S) No. ' ' ^ ' /2010 ^•^ ^^ ^^ ^^"" RESPONDENTS ^/^w^%}\ /^^w'^%^ ^' /\^ ^ Pusahuram Dhruv, S/o. Shri Mangluram Dhruv, aged about 39 years, R/o. Mukam 85 Post - Koliyari, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS (l)r'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 XI-HC-22 ^^? ^Nld<4, ^'al<ri^<o, l^lPRy aff^r '^^K i..^.;..7.1g?/ZS'l° •••^/ 200 W^Tf ^HIch ^S^T* ^TT^l'^1 f^ri^'^n^T 5tl^lc^ ^H ^ JS.B.: HOH^BLB JU8TICB MR. PRITiSBiKBR DIWAKER 16^12"201Q: STT^T ^mw^f^r Shri S.P.Kale, couasei for the Shri Smita G-hai, P.L. for tlie S betitioaer, tta.tc, Gri.evance of tlie petitioner m.1 |thiough he is entirted for his regularj; puard, he has been regularized on Shri Kale siibniits li5.at the ^ ^iich regularization order on the po^ I'einaiiis that the regularization orde{ the present petition. is fh.at j.za.tion OB. tlie post of Forest t^ie post ofwatchiiiaxi. 'tition.er has not. ffled aoy' ^t of 'Watchjsiao: 'but the fact ha.s already been pa.ssed, Coiinsel for the petitio.uer su\ |iave coiapleted all the formalities fo| |avour of the petitioDer and fherefor^ ^nay be permitted to withdraw the ^o file a fresh representation befor^ ^anie may be directed to be decide4 ^xpeditioiisly as possible. Counsel for tlie State. submit ithe fact he caanot rsiake any ste poverB.izie.D.t is wil3ic..g to regularize Spn the post of Forest Giiard or ^bjection if the petitioner makes fa-ufhority concerD.ed aad llie sa feccordance with law, .L cbl<4id41T1 'RTR^ff ^ 'ft1^ 'Tf^f^R ^3Tf^R3TI^r ^niits fliat. A.e respOB-dents pa.ssirig B.ecessaiY order iri at this sta.ge the petitioxier >resent petition witii Hberty respondent No,2 ai2.d the ,m. accord.auce wifh, law as fiiat without a.scerta.io.in.g jtem.ent whether the State |he services of the petitioner jnot, However, he has IAO represent.ati.orx before tb.e to.e is decided by it iu ^L [Tfr^ ^3TI I ^giga ?-HC-22: '^ ^' ^. ^ ^' ^^T -<41<4td^ '^rteTR, t^TRTy ^•z ^yy '^ 3ff^T 17^? WH^IT $b*ii^* •M 200 'fN^ST' STT^T'oFI f^ri^^T^T 5h^icb <-ifia ^ Accordingly, fhe petition is| tAiat in fhe event of aiiy represei| before respoudent No,2 raisio.g expected to be decided by fj accordsjice wifh law as expeditiouj It is niade clear that ftus (| opmion on laerits of the case would be at liberty to decide tlie i^ strictly in accordance with law aft^ position. and tlie statem.e.n.t m.a.de ^ chl^fd<4l^ W^i "^ ft^ <fa^!< '^'S^R^^T disposed of ^dth a directiori .tation filed by the petitioner liis gxievao.ces,L the same is le authorily concemed iii $!y as possible. poiirt has not expressed ajiy 4o.d the a.uthority concem.ed Ipresentation of tlie petition.er |r verifviag the 'coiTect factis.ai. jt the bai\ •-—-.——— Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tfr^ '^fe^I