cp /<^/ :{s" 8£e;? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHV W.P. fS)No.<:V-^ cs ^- /2010 PETITIONER ^^^' ^y- ^^' ^y'y>>" ^\ ,,."•" l^" RESPONDENTS ^•- Deepak Das Manikpuri, S/o. Shri Chotu Das Manikpuri, aged / about 52 years, R/o. Mukam 8s Post - Banraud, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretaiy, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Diyisional Forest Officer, Forest Division (Samanya), Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ^f' (3) Depot Officer, office of Depot Officer (forest), Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^°s:z-\ ;I-KC-22 „. ^ ^5ET ^i|^id<LI, ^Tl1<-l^(o, 'f^<v{l<rl^< 3T?^?T t[5RR _..U.^.CS)...N.?:..' WR^IT^^n^ {^>\^ -'•^' 200 '^^ST' W^T^T f^n^^^i ^RNT^rft^ \16-12-2010: 3TI^T'^fTW^Rif^f »B.:HON?BLE JU8TICE MR. PmTKNKBR DIWAKER Shri S.P.Kale, counsel for the Shri Smita Ghai, P.L. for the ^tate t^etitioner, tbe Grievajice ofthe petition.er in| pioiigh he is entitled for bis regiilarjzati< puard, he has been regularized on Shri Kale submits that the ^ liuch regularteation order ou tlie po< ^eniams that the regularization orde^ Couii.sel for the petitiouer su| ^iave coxapleted aU the formaJities fo^ |Tavour offhe petitioner axid therefor^ |2iay be permitted to witlidrew the ^ |Lo file a firesh representation befor^ feaiiie inav be directed to be decide.d 'xpeditiously as possible. Counsel for tlie State submitt the fact he caonot make any stal povenxmeiit is wiUing to regularize t>n. the post. of Forest Guard or ^bjection if fhe petitioner laakes 4 ^uthority conceraed a&d fhe ^iccordance wifh law. J._ '3F)pri^T;(ft';T 'HW^ff ^ ^S <P^<r$l< i7^P?R3TI^T the px'eseiit petitioB, is th.at za.tion. on th.e post of Porest post ofwatehiiaaD.. 'etitiouer has not filed aiiy >t of Wa.tchniasr biit th.e fact has already been passed^ :)m,its th.at the respondente passirig necessan'r order in at this stage the petitioner )resent petition wifti Uberty respondent No.2 an.d the .ia accord.an.ee witli law a.s- iit{5 that without ascertainiag taltem.ent whetb.er the StMe tpie services ofth.e petiiioner |not. However, he has no represeutation before fhe sajoie is decided by it m. Sb [^ '?P^I I-HC-22 ^•11^ 1 .^^r" -y^ ^TP^R, ^•di^^l^, "^RTy 3Tf^W 'CRf^ ^ira^ ^iti^*'*'*************'**** -^ 'fN^T' 200 'ST^l'^T 'f^w^n^T ^RW^ftcT x^ ^T^T^eiT^^f^I Accordmgly^ the petition isj tliat io. the event of any represe^tetion before respondeBt No.2 raisiag expected to be decided by tj accordance with law as expeditioii} It is m.ade clear fhat this opinion on merits of tlie case would be at Kberty to decide the r4 strictly in accordance witbL law ai'tx position aiid the statement made ^ourt has not expressed aoy Ind •th.e aufhority concero.ed tpresenta.lion of tJie petitioner [r verifyijig tlie con'ect factaal it the bar. cbl<4(d^T1 TTR^t* ^ 'f^st <p3l^i< ^sTf^m^n^r disposed of wifh a direction filed by the petitioiier his grievaQ.ces,, the same is le authority concem.ed ixi dy as possible, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [^'^fe;rl