G ;' C^x?^/ ^y ^ ^^ ^"(t<! ;A-n!1"'-' ??"'i'' v''"'r:' w '''' ";v' '' *" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (8) No. <-7^ I /2010 PETITIONER ^£^ ^%^ RESPONDENTS ^" Sohan Lal Markam, S/o. Shri Pardhu Ram Markam, aged about 36 years, R/o. Village - Sonjhari, Post - Singhpur, Tahsil Magarload, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VE RS U S ^^- (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.) £ L_ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF moiA ^!S$^2^^,^ ^5.>^^S^ .^Rx ,j '^ ^ XI-HC-22; ^3^. '^"^? W^T^T f^n^'sn^T ^4-ii<=h ^fia "S^f ^t^ld^, ^d^PT^, 'f^TRTy ^.3.^4.^^ 'fN^ST' WW^T Sf^RT^ W^T ^^TS;R ^f^T B.B.: H'OH'BLE JUSTECB MR. P»UTINKBRDIWAKBR 16-12-2010; Shri S.P^Kale, counsel for t] Sriri Smita Ghai, P.L. for tNe Otl Grievaace of the petitioner| though he is entitled for his regu] Guard, he has been regiilarized Shri Kale submits that fhi siich regularization order on the reinams fl-iat the regul.ari.zation |in tJhie present petitiou i.s tliat |arization on tbe post of Forest the post ofwatchxnaa. petitioner has not filed ai.ly bost of Watchiaan bzit tJie fact o^der has already beeu passed, Counsel for the petitioner have conipleted aU the formaLities| favour of tlie petitioner aad therej niay be permitted to withdraw tl| to'file.a fresh representa.tion. be saine niay be directed to be deci| expeditiously as possible. Counsel for fhe State fhe fact he caGiiot make anv Govemm-ent is wUImg to regixlari^ on the post of Porcst Guard objection if ftie petitioner xnakej authority conceraed and tlie accordaxice witli law, GhNt<n^i 'En^f'? 1rcst' <P?!^K '^3Tf;OTW^T [ie petitioner, State. |subinits tliat the respondents for pa.ssia.g necessaiy ord.er iii |bre at fbis stage ftie petitioner [e present petition wi.th. Kberty' |bre responden.t No,2 aod the 3-ed in.- accordaiice wi.th law. as subtaits iiits that without ascerteiniiig iststenient whether tfie State '^c ihe services of the petitioner 3r not, However^ he has no s a representation before the saiae is decided by it m [^ 'rdf^'-?I •s' r' .,^ivx"-^ ~.^.h .XI-HC-22 ^sr '^T^n^R, ^re7T^, t^TRTy an^r "^ra? WRC-TTWW^ •M 200 "^^•" ^TT^T^I K^Jch 3T^T 5h^icn ^f^a INN— 3:n^[ ^n^R'nf^ Accordingly, the petition is flia.t iii. fhe event of any represei^1 before respondent No.2 raisiag ^ expected to be decided by accordaace with law as expeditiou^ disposed of witli a diiT.ctio.n tatiou filed by tlie petitioner lis grievaiices^ the saoie is autliorily concenied iii •ly as possible. t|ie abd It is inade clear that this Q opmion on merits of the case would be at liberty to deci.de ftie strictlv ni accordance with law aftetr position and the statement raade a| <=hl^id4i<?T ^ll^<rff ^ tt^ <p3i^i< ^T a?Ti^TR 3?H^T ^ourt has not expressed axiy the authori.fr^ conceraed re|preserita.tion of the petitioner veriiyin.g tMe correct lactual the bar. —" Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [^ •^fe^I