1 2025:CGHC:38049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8222 of 2025 1 - Chain Choudhary W/o Dr. Mukesh Choudhary Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Shringi Rishi Excellent English Medium School, Nagri, Block- Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Education Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 7 - Principal Govt. Shringi Rishi Excellent English Medium School, Nagri, Block- Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 8 - Girdhari Lal Sahu Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Shringi Rishi Excellent English Medium School, Nagri, Block- Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 9 - Mansingh Sahu Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Shringi Rishi Excellent English Medium School, Nagri, Block- Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.17 19:39:26 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 01-08-2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work at present place of her posting and to transfer respondent No.7 to 9 to any other schools and she claimed the following relief(s):- “10.1That, this Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work at present place of her posting and transfer the respondent no. 7 to 9 or any one of them to nearby school for vacant post to demolish their joint group of three people against the petitioner, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 7 to 9 to file their reply in relation with harassment of the petitioner by them. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 06-06-1998. On 06-03-2006 she was promoted as Teacher L.B. She is discharging her duty with utmost sincerity. In the meantime, the respondent No. 8 and 9 were posted in the school and they with collision of Principal of the school started harassing the petitioner which was resulted in her suspension vide order dated 10-01-2025. She challenged her 3 suspension order dated 10-01-2025 in WPS No.762/2025 which was allowed on 28- 01-2025 and her suspension order was quashed and pursuant to order dated 28-01- 2025 her services have been reinstated. The petitioner had also moved various representations against respondents No.8 and 9 before the respondents authorities, but the same has not been considered and they are making syndicate and harassing and create hindrance in discharging her duty. Therefore, she filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the State-respondents, on instruction, would submit that there is no claim of the petitioner with respect to her service condition. The grievance raised by the petitioner is her personal grievance with the co-employees which cannot be settled in the present writ petition. If she is having some personal grievance with her co-employees, she is having other remedies for the same. It is not there that she was deprived from discharging her duties, but she claimed that respondents No.7 to 9 or any of them may be transferred to other place which appears to be personal grievance of the petitioner and the same cannot be redressed in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents annexed with the petition, it clearly reveals that the petitioner has not claimed any violation of service condition and it is submitted that respondents No.7 to 9 have made a syndicate and harassing her from discharging the duties, but there is no such complaint to the higher authorities. The representation/complaint (Annexure-P/2) has been filed by the petitioner which was of 09-08-2024 and the petitioner could very well take recourse to law against such grievance in the WPS No.762/2025 which was disposed of on 28-01-2025. The grievance raised by the petitioner is purely a personal grievance with her co-employees for which she has the other remedies. This Court does not find any violation of service condition or any fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 4 Constitution of India to grant any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition sans merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil