1 2025:CGHC:49758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5186 of 2025 1 - Thomson Anthony S/o Late James Anthony Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Gaurav Mishra S/o Shri Arun Kumar Mishra Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 1354 Kaushik Kirana Lane Shivam Tailors Lane Devrikhurd Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director School Education, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Dist. Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Diocese Education Society Khrist Bandhu Niwas Through Director Raipur Diocese Education Society Khrist Bandu Niwas, Byron Bazar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 7 - The Principal Bharat Mata Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - The Secretary Bharat Mata Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Gloriya Xalxo W/o Polus Xalxo Aged About 34 Years Working As Clerk In Bharat Mata Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School Bilaspur R/o Near Sai Mandir Hemu Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and direct the respondent authority to take appropriate action upon the application dated 29.08.2025. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and direct to 3 the respondent authority to remove respondent no. 9 and posted another place to her from Bharat Mata Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School Bilaspur. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsels for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 9 is working as Sahayak Grade II in the Bharat Mata Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur. The petitioners made a complaint against the respondent no. 9 before the police station for registration of FIR against the respondent no. 9 therefore the concern police station registered the FIR on 03.08.2025 against the respondent no. 9 in crime no. 192/2024 in punishable offense under Section 420 and 34 of IPC. Due to the FIR respondent authority suspended the respondent no. 9 and thereafter on 07.07.2025 respondent no. 9 is revoke from her suspension. The allegation upon respondent no. 9 is she received money from the petitioners and others for providing government job respondent no. 9 received Rs. 15 lakh from the petitioners and other person and did not provided job to the persons thereafter FIR was registered against respondent no. 9 bearing crime no. 192/2024. He further contended that another case bearing no. WPS No. 2313 of 2015 was filed regarding the appointment of respondent 4 no. 9. This Court vide order dated 08.10.2024 directed the respondent authorities to conduct an inquiry regarding appointment of the respondent no. 9. He also contended that due to the again posting of the respondent no. 9 on the same place and same post, petitioners move an application before the respondent authority for posting the respondent no. 9 at another place because the respondent no. 9 may temper with the document regarding the pending allegation and inquiry. 3. At the outset, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and contended that there is no good ground to entertain this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties on maintainability and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is crystal clear from the record that there is a dispute between the petitioner and private respondent no. 9. FIR has already been lodged by the concerned police station as a result of which she was suspended. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the cognizance of the matter has already been taken by the concerned police station and department, then there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima