C^-t^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. fS) No."^}-|^;(- /2010 PETITIONER ,w<- , ^r ^•' A ^s^^ v-^^y"" ^' ^•' 1^' ^ RESPONDENTS Ekram Patel, S/o. Late Gajadhar Patei aged about 38 years, R/o. Village - Gahnasiyaad, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS (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.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : ~3FcEr ^|^td<LI, ^Til<H^<5, fa<r<i^y s'nif^r 'q^? ^lltidl *^1<* '^ T^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 2^0 'fN^y" ^TT^T^T f<rli<=h 3^?T ^^i^ <if^a 3:TT^?T'^cTT^R'Hf^TT <=!bl<Ll(<n41T1 'RTR^ff ~? f^St <f^1^1< '^3Tf^m37T^T 8.B.: HON*BLB JU8TICE MR. PNltINKER DIWAKBR 07-12-2010: Shri Viaod Deshmiikh, coun^el for the petitioBer. Shri Vaibhav Goveidhan, P. 14 for the State. Grievaace of fhe petitioner i4 fhe present petition is tbat tliough he is entitled for his regula^i^ation on the post of Porest Guard, he has been regulari^ed on fche post ofwatchinaa, Counsel for fhe petitioner si| have coHipleted aU the formaUties f<| favour of the petitioner and therefoj may be permitted to withdraw thej to file a firesh representation befo| saine niay be directed to be decidejd expeditiously as possible. Counsel for fhe State submj libioits that fhe respondents ^r passiag necessaiy order m |:e at this stage the petitioner present petitton with Uberty re respondent No.2 and the ia accordaace with law as ts that without ascertamiag the fact he caiinot make any s1|atement whether the State Goveminent is wiUing to regularize|fSie services offhe petitior&er on fhe post of Forest Guard oxj objection tf the petitioner inakes authority concenied and tlxe ^aiae is decided by it m accordaace with law. Accordingly, fhe petitioa is that in the event of any represen before respondent No.2 raisirig not, However, he has no a rcpresentation before the (disposed of with a direction t^tion filed by fhe petltioner Ijiis grievances, the same is [TT^ s.nci^ y^J T" fiQ> \ I 1|^ J XI-HC-22 ^ssy T 'TocT ^t|<4H<LI, ^Tl1<H^<5, iG1cni^^< SIT^T 'V^K ^^...........^.:^..K^^ ^ l^^ar" 3^T^T ^J^b 371^1 5^^licb 'yf^^t 3TT^I-^IT^R'Hf^T ^^ expected to be decided by tljie authorily coneeraed m accordance wifh law as expeditiou^ly as possible. It is made clear that tihis C|oiirt has not expressed aay opiaion on merits of fhe case a(ad the autliority concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe re^resentation of the petitioner stdctly ia accordaace with law. chi^I<n<fl<i TnTI^f ^ fe^t ^^K '^'3Tf^R3T^r Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge [Tft^ S.R?!^