gj i ! It; 1 C^- le^L— IN THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WritPetition(S).No. l^giX /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1.^ ,^^<^/ ^s^ c'"y^\^ 2. ^ •^/hv ^' ^' ' .- ^••••/ ^ 3. /' (S.B.) Girdhar Pandey, S/o Shivanand Pandey, aged about 38 years, Occupation - Daily Wager Guard, Posted at Forest Range North Kondagaon. District-Bastar (C.G) StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Conservator of forest, Forest Range North Kondagaon, District- North Bastar (C.G.) Division Forest Officer, Forest Range North Kondagaon, District- North Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION (S) OR ORDER (S). 3T^T ^T'f^TW WT ^^ $ti^i<=r> <W^fT^»<<T^» 'TSIT '^llqltnq, ©•dl^Ko,f®l<?1l^llj,< ^^...A3f.g.)...^.:...^..^.J.^, 3:lt^T W3Rl (^e|f^<^f) WnW^rf?H3TT^T SBiHon'bie Shri ivianindra Ivlohaln Shrivastava.A 0.6^8-2010 tdat vlew Shri V.Vijay Rao, counsei foi1 Shri Satish Gupta, Governm| copy. Case of the petiuoner is petitioner for reguiarisation und4 promuigated by the State Governrt cases of JtTeguIar appointment in in the case of Secretery, State oi\ and othws (2006) 4 SCC 1, thoug|i on, his name was exciuded frorn th^ dated 4/6/2009 (Annexure P/3) oprf' vyho vvere found ineiigibie to furnisll Though petltioner had submitted substantiate his clairn vide his re^ P/5) foiiowea3 by another represent^ the same has been taken tiil date. Taking into consjderation | opportunity to the petitioner to furnl^ dated 4/0/2009, it wouid be the clairn of the petitioner f^i documents/materials furnished by the judgrnent of the Supreme Court| ^Frf<?F2ft;T 'HW^if ^? fe^ <r3l<^i< '^'aff?FT3T7^T ithepetltioner. ent Advocate for respondents on advance whlie scruunizing the eljgibility of the ?r reguiarisation policy dated 5/3/2008 fient, to reguiarise as one tirne measure, of the judgrnent of the Suprerne Court \Katnataka and v\ vmaffew f3) . jnjtiaily the petitioner was found fit, iater ^ list of eiigible ernpioyees and vide rnemo lortunity was afforded to those employees reievant records in suppo?1 oftheir ciaim. Irelevant information as aiso records to ^esenmtion dated 17707/2009 (Annexure Ition dated 10/06/2010, but no decision on that the respondents have granted ^h proof in support of his cialm vide memo approluate to direct respondent No/2 to decide |r reguiarisation after scrutjnizing ^lhe |the petitioner, strictiy in accordance wl^h |in the case of Uiiiadevi (Sypra). Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge