c^ ^°^7 -7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2_(2,<^) / 201^> Petitioners / -..?-oy / ^ 7 /// 'C-j / / y ^ / •<%/ d^w -4: ^i^ Jantaram aged about 45 years, S/o Kawal Singh R/o Nagar Panchayat Narharpur, Distt. U.B. Kanker Budharurara aged about 48 years, S/o Pisadu R/o Village Suri Post Badal, Tahsil Narharpur, Distt U.B. Kanker Raturain, aged about 50 years S/o Faguram R/oVillage Kariyapara, Tahsil Narharpur, Post Marwadi, Distt. Kanker Jagatram Sori, aged about 47 year, S/o Fatehsingh R/o Village Babuohkha Post Kharta, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kanker Versus Respondents /1 ^MW/^ ^ / \% • 1 S.B. ^rf^ijl, )J .< ^. ^ -<» '^Ta^t ^"2. ^3. ^- State of.Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary Forest Depar.tment, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle, Kanker Sub Divisional Officer, (General), Forest Divisional Kanker Project Officer, General Forest Division, Kanker WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As Stated in the cause title [r^ 2. Particulars of the Respondents IMiAMia^il-ii ^r ashok HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (Si N0. 238 OF 2011 Respondents Versus Jantaram & Others State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N.Roy, Panei Lawyerforthe State/ respondents. 1. 4. (Passed on 19'" day of January, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initialiy engaged as daily wager and thereafter after having worked for about 15 years, they were removed from the services on 18.1.2000. The Gonservator of Forest on 10.8.2010 dlrected ali the Forest Divisional Officer, Kanker circle, to grant priority to the daily wagers, who have been removed earlier for appointment. The same was reiterated vide communipation dated 23.8.2010 by the Forest Divisionat Officer, Kanker, to other Range Officers. On this basis, the petitioners have not acquired any right for appointment or reinstatement, as law is welt settled. However, it is e)yected that if in future, some employment takes place, the communication, as afore-stated may be considered. in view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order astocosts. ^ I. . , Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge