3mm mm Q{3\emz,;_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,ff (D (CHHATTISGARm W.P. (S) No? 2‘?Q [2010 y” ’ Hira Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Dharam Singh Sahu, aged about 39 years, R/o. Mukam — Bilbhadar, Post — Dongardula, Tahsil — Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari [c.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS / (1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (2T Divisional Forest Ofiieer, Forest Division (Samanya), Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (3f Depot Officer, office of Depot Officer (forest), Dhamtari (C.G.) Nagri, Distt. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAN z r,1 Wm mm wwww Wmgz‘” 2 m mmaawm WW WW ésmmm . PRITINKER DIWAKER S.B.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR 13- 12-2010: Shri Vinoti Deshmukh. couns Shn' Sumesh Bajaj, GA. for t] Gxievance of the petitioner ' the present petition is that though he is entitled for his regul 'zation on the post of Forest Guard, he has been regularized on Caunsel for the petitioner s have completed all the formalities f favour of the petitioner and therefo may be permitted to withdraw the resent petition with liberty to file a fresh representation befo same may be directed to be decide expeditiously as possible. Counsel for the State submii the fact he cannot make ally stz Government is willing to veguian'ze ‘ on the post of Forest Guard or objection if the petitioner makes z authority concerned and the s2 accordance with law‘ Accordingly, the petition is c‘ that in the event of any represenq before respondent No.2 raising h: e1 for the petitioner. 1e State. e post ofwatchman. mits that the respondents passing necessary order in at this stage the petitioner respondent No.2 and the in acconiance with law as s that Without ascertaining ttement Whether the State :he services of the petitioner not. However, he has no 1 i representation before the Lme is decided bv it in x .isposed of with a direction ition filed by the petitioner Ls grievances, the same is k -2/ Ycxpected [ to be decided by the ‘accordarlce \ with law as expeditiouslj It is made Clear that this Cc opinion on merits of the case an would b6 at Hborty to decide tho ray strictly in accordance with law. authority concernod in I as possible. turt has not expressed any d the authority concerned resentation of the petitioner Pritinker Diwaker Judge ma an“: j