0^ G^2^^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W.P. JS} No.<7h7"7 / 2010 PETITIONER ^ \/^' .....^Sit^"" ^^' ^^-^' '^'..-'•-"""" '^""" Chitra Sen Verma, S/o. Shri Govind Singh Verma, aged about \^^t^y^ 43 years, R/o. Mukam 85 Post - Nagri, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^ (1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretaiy, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /^s'y /^^€^'Z..^?1 i^n^N-r?1 1 <fl.\ ~~" . / ^ l v'^\ ./^"/ "Y v<9 ^' (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 ^r^:^. i ^^xi-H&-22: ^TT^T'^T k^W 3^T ^rRWHS^Tf ~^^ ^S<41<rt^, ^TTI^^KO, 'f^TRTy 3??^T 1T5T^ WHC^I ^1RI<^ ..:.?.'..^..7.,7Z^ ,„ •^^s?' 37T^T'^na?R ^f^T B.B.: HON*BLE JUSTSCE MR. ItmTINKER DIWAKER ,16-12-2010: Shri S.P^Kale, cou-nsel for SIui S'mita GIiai, P.L. for the petiti.o.ner. Sie State. GrievaB.ee of the petitioii€|r though he is entitled for his Guard, he has been regularized Shri Kale siibimts tliat t| such regularization order on tii^ remaias that the regularization reg^ilarization Counsel for the petitione] have coxnpleted aU tfae fonnalj.ti€|s favour of the petitioner and tlier) may be permitted to withdraw t6 fUe a fresh represeutation b| same niay be directed to be expeditioiisly as possible. Counsel for the State su1 tlie fact he caonot make aoy Goveniiuent i,s wfflio.g to regiilar on the post of Forest Giiard objection i,f th.e petitioner m.ak.< authority conceined and the accordance with law. -i_. ch(14(d<Li1^ 'WT^f ^ 'fe^t' <i^<^« iTSTf^T^Ti^T in th-e present petition i^ fh.at on ttrie post of Forest 3ii ftlc post ofwatchinaii. iie petitioner has n.ot filed aoy' post of Watchman biit tlie fact >rd.er has ^ib-eady been passed. submits that the respondeiits for passing iiecessary'order in. pfore. at tliis sta.ge th.e petiti.oB.er |he present petition wifh Uberty 'fore respondeBt. No,2 and the io. accordance witli law a.% dedidcd iiaits that without ascertaining sta.teEQ.ent whether ttie State ize the senrices of the petitioner or not. However, he has 11,0 a^ a s'epresentatioB. before tiie sam.e is d.ecided by it ia [^ '^3TI ^<^;y^ yy^. "^. ^^-::3E <^22 -^ET '^|<41d4, 'S'rf^FR', 'fa^ii^y sTi^r ^^ 1TP1W ^ni^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 20° fsPE^ST' 3^1^1'^T 'f^Tw^nt^T ^^icb"^rf^T ^^\ 3^1'^najr ^rfiTr represe|ntation Accbrdingly, fhe petition i| fhat m the event of aay before respondent No,2 raisingl expected to be decided by accordaxice wifh law as expeditioi It is niade clear tliat this opiaion 011 merits of the case would be at liberty to decide the strictly in accordance with law afl position aad the statenient made chl<L!?d41rl ^l^dl*'^ftTst <F3l<^l< '^'^rf^R^n^T disposed of with a direction - filed by the petitioiier his grievaiices, the saiHe is |:he authority co.nceiiied in isly as pbssible. Co'urt has not expressed aiiy laiid tli.e aiitliorifr^ concei'ned |epresent.ation of tiie petitioner |er verifying th.e correct factual ^.t tlie bar, ———" Sd/- pritinker Diwaker judge [^•^fe^