Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. - (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution dtd. 5/1/2022 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.3 allowing 50 new guides in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve.
(2.)The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is an association of guides working and registered in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve and petitioner No.2 is the Manager of the said association. They submit that induction of 50 additional guides in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve violates their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is stated that presently 108 guides are already registered by the Field Director, Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve and the Local Advisory Committee is not the statutory body which can increase the number of guides by almost 50% of the existing strength. The entry of tourists in recent past has drastically reduced and if such a decision is implemented, the employment possibilities of the members of the petitioners/association is bound to be reduced.
(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.