<^F-\ INTHE^HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S1 No??l( ? ^ /2010 ^misi^ '^ PETITIONER A^K.^^ Uderam Yadav, S/o. Shri Phool Singh Yadav, aged about 45 years, R/o. Village- Ghudawar ^,f>N^.^.l?r.^"^V^ Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari „^ -•""1^- \^-> (C.G.) ^'"^^'^' .^""'" l9^c'^"...-""">" ^.^••"" RESPONDENTS VERSUS (1) 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 CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ ^Ms^ j s i: ^l E&^L'^-..^N- /' ^ -HC-22 -^E[ -^qiZJT^TSr, ^Tll^^Ko, f^<r11^^ _..3LX3es/f& 'Rra^'gTW^******* '**' * '^^ ^ ^z/ fe^l?' ^TT^T^T [<rii<=h' 3^i?r 5h*-licb <rl[i<1 ^.B.: HON^BLB JUBTICE MR. PMT| M-12-2010; STT^T'^rr^R ^rft^ DEWAKBR Shri S,PJ<ale, couiisel for tlie Shii Smita G-hai, P.L. for fee S{bate Grievance of tlie petitioner irx |hough he is eiititled for his rcgularij ^xuard, he has been regiilarized ou Shri Kale siibisiits th.at fh.e p ^iich regularization order on fhe pos temaias that fhe regiilp^rization ordei [tl-i.e present petition is tli.at ^ation on. the post of Forest tl.t.e post ofwatchxnan. rtitioner has not filed aisy >s|t ofWatchBiaii but the fact has akeady beexi passed, Counsel for the petifcioner sul| |i,ave completed all tb.e form.alities foi| ^avour of the petitioner axid tlierefore) 3|aay be permitted to withdraw the 1|o file a fresh 5'epresentation befor^ ^aaie inay be directed to be decidedj ^xpeditiously as possible, Counsel for fh.e State subniit; 1|he fact he cannot make any sta (JTOvero.ment is wiUing to regulariz^ i»n tlie post of Forest Guai'd or bjection/if' the petitioner raakes iutliority concemed aiid the iccordance witli law. -L. chi<Ltid<sfl'1 TTR^f ^ f^Tsl' ^^K '^'srf^R^Tr^T etltioner, tiaits t.1mt tlxe i^spondents passmg necessary order in a.t this stage llie petitiosier -^resent petition wifl.i liberty respond.en.t No.2 and tfae in. accord.aB.ee witli law a,s that. witho'iit ascertam.Hig s.te.m.ent whetlier the State tj|i.e services of tlie petiti.oiier |iot. However, he has no represeiitation before the sa^ne is decided by it in [^•^fe-^ '^ XI-HC-22 y ^ET •^Tpn^R, ^fl^FTS, fa<nw*i< 3n^r 1q^9? ^SN<^t5h^i**'<**'**""<^<*^**e*<"'**t<*"<<W^ 20° '^^8?' 3T^T^T 'f^IW^Ti^ st)4-iic^ ^iia arTT^T ^RIT^R ^Tft^ represe4tati' Accordijigly, tlie petition is] that iii fiie event of aiiy before respondent No.2 raisiiig expected to be decided by 4 accordaiice wifh law as expeditioui| disposed of witli a directio.n l.ta.tion liled by -the petitioner |iis grievaiices^ the sam.e is jie a..uthori1y coiicemed ,iii .ly a.s possible. It is inade clear th.at th.is (t opinion on merits of the case would be at Ube^ to decide the strictly ni accordaace with law position and tlie statement made a^ pourt has nof expressed aay the aufhority concera.ed r€|presentatipnof the petitioner veriiyirs-g the coirect factual. att fhe bar. aft4r <=hl14fd<lflr1 ^s^<^l*1?lTT:^t <M^K iF^n^R^n^T Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tit^ '^7-\