1 CGHC010282772026 2026:CGHC:32972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5748 of 2026 Dr Ravindra Kumar Yadav (In Person) S/o Ram Raj Yadav Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Guest Lecturer (Hindi Department ) At Shahed Mahendra Karma University Jagdalpur Bastar C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Joint Director Higher Education Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Registrar Shaheed Mahendra Karma, University Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. 4 - The Head Of Department Hindi Adhyayanshaala Shaheed Mahendra Karma University Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.30 18:19:13 +0530 2 5 - Internal Compalint Committee Through Its Presding Officer, Shaheed Mahendra Karma Vishwavidyalaya Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Petitioner in person For Respondent/State : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 3 to 5 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University, Shri Choubey, submits that the present writ petition assails the report of the Internal Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (for short, ‘The Act 2013’). He submits that the said report is appealable under Section 18 of the Act 2013 and, therefore, in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that he has already preferred an appeal, a copy whereof is annexed at 3 page 22 of the petition. However, on perusal of the said document, this Court finds that it is not an appeal preferred in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act 2013. 3. Since an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2013, if so advised. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law and on its own merits. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib