1 2025:CGHC:55510-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5945 of 2025 Sandeep Yadav S/o Ashok Yadav Aged About 45 Years Posted As Computer Operator, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sakri, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Head Office, C.B.D. Sector-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 5. The Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara C.G. 6. The District Marketing Officer, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 7. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 8. The Society Manager, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sakri, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.14 15:02:36 +0530 2 9. The President, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sakri, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 10. The Society Manager, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Khilaura, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 11. The President, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Khilaura, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice/tender dated 11.04.2025, 19.06.2025, 29.07.2025 & 19.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) so far it relates to the recruitment on the post of Data 3 Entry Operator for the place where the petitioner is working. 10. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner for regularization, expeditiously adopting humanitarian approach, sympathetically, considering that the petitioner while continuing service has crossed maximum age as prescribed under the service rules of the State Government. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2025 in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “6. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 8. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, 4 reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 9. In light of the above submission and settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. Accordingly, all the petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy as provided under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, if so advised.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present petition is identical to that of WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in passed in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan