M;P. Ma. [llAfgLc/ng WW \ Wizw Shri Ashok Kumar. 3hukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri DR. Agarwal, Dy. Adv. General for the State. Heard. The petitioner was working with the Revenue Department as a casual 4%“1 Class employee (Process Server) at Baikunthpur. The grie‘éance of the writ petitioner is that instead of regularizing him, his services have been terminated x by the respondents a oritics and other persons who are ' have been regularized. Aggrieved therewith the petitioner s made a representation (Annexure 5 P—6) to the Collector, W ch having not been considered the petitioner has approache" this Qomt for relief. Having considered Without expressing any opinion ' d on the merits of the easein the opinion of this Court, ends of ,é ‘ justice will be served if gdlrection is given to the petitioners to make a detailed re fresentation before the competent u f ', i appoinLed as casual wor GRPRI—FSI} I 3 1 “ ‘mW(W) WWW ' WW13WW %ai1%m3n&¥t 03.07.2003