StWMS*»»uS*5*5K3;3 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. fSINo. 7^Z9/2010 4. PETITIONER Rameshwar Singh Yadav, S/o. Late Rajan Singh Yadav, aged r about 49 years, R/o. Mukam ^^LA^N^S> Hirapur, Sihava, Tahsil - Nagri, ^2'^,^^';?- Distt:Dhamtari('C:G:)' (^s!.!"^' \^°- RESPONDENTS V E R SUS ^(1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretaiy, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ '^i-T^./" ?N (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 RXI-HC-22 ^^ -Ml^ld^ '3^fte7T?, fN^TRTy; 3?lt^T 'V^K ^^ WW'1T^HT^» •f^r 3TT^T'^T [<-lJ<=h ^[^ 5b+iic^ <if^a 3:IT^¥T^^ra;R'Hf^T B.B.: HON'fBLE JUSTICE MR. PRllTIKKBR DIWAKER 16"12»2010: Shri S.P,Kale, cou-nsel for th( Shri Smita Ghai, P.L. for fhe its Grievance of th.e petitioner i^ though he is entitled for his Giiard, he has beeu reguladzed ouj Shri Kale siibisiits that the| such regTil.arization. order on th.e rem.aio.s that the regulari.za.tion orc|< regiils|ri2;ation p^st Counsel for ttae petiuoner s| bave coHipleted aU the foiToaIities If^r favour of the petitioner aad theref€|re xaay be permitted to withdraw thej to flle a fresh representetiosi befcjrc same niay be directed to be decid^( expeditiously as possible. submlits Counsel for the State submE ihe fact he caniiot xaake anv Goveroment is wiBi&g to regTilarizej on the post of Forcst Guard o objection Lf the petitioner niakes authority conceroed aa.d tbe a.ccordance witli law. J.-_. chi^^i ^i^<^T'^feT^i" iFsi^K ^ <3?y^R 3TI^T petitloner. State. liie present petition is tliat on tlie post of Forest the Dost ofwa.tchm.aii. petitioner has not til.ed aiiy of Watchm.aii biit the fact |er has already beeii passed. iibmits that th.e respondents passiiig necessan^ ord.er -m a.t this stage the petitioner present petition wi.th liberty •rc -respoB.dent No.2 axi.d the 'd in accordan.ee wi.th law a.s 3i|its that wifhout. ascertaiaiiig sta.tesiient whether the State tli.e services of the petitioner not, However, he has no a representation before fb..e ^aine is decided by it m. +-• [^•^fe^ XI-HC-22 "s^ ^\^w^, w^wj^, l^^iray 3TT^T 'v^^ ^s WHC'TT^W^ •M 200 'fN^^r' 3Tr^T^T f<^i<=h ^n^r s»)^i<=h 'yfia <3?T^I ^cfT^ TTf^TT 4>11L<fd41r1 'RPraf ^ 'ftc^ 'tf^SR ^ 3Tf^W 3T?t^T Accordingly, the petition is [disposed of witli a direction tliat ia the event of aay representation filed by fhe petitioner before respondent No.2 raisnig Ijiis gxievaiices, the saoie is expected to be decided by t14 accordaace witii law as expeditiou^ly as possible. abd It is raade clear that fhis O opiiiion on merits of ftie case would be at Iibertvr to decide &e rek stiictly in accordaiice with law aite|r position aod tlie statement made a^ ie authodty concemed m ^ourt has not expressed any th-e aufhori.ty- concem.ed preseB.ta.tion of the petifcioner ^ venfyin.g the correct factual. fhe bai\ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge J,- [Tfr^ '^\^