1 2025:CGHC:54800-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5379 of 2025 Sevakram Sahu S/o Yashwant Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years Posted As Computer Operator, Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Chairakapur, District - Balodabazar (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 Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 5. The Collector Baloda- Bazar District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 6. The District Marketing Officer Baloda- Bazar District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 7. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Baloda- Bazar District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 2 8. The Society Manager Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Sarseni Branch Koshmandi District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 9. The Branch Manager - Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Sarseni Branch Koshmandi District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 10. The Society Manager Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Chairakapur Branch Koshmandi District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 11. The Branch Manager Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Chairakapur Branch Koshmandi District - Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For MARKFED : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 9 & 10 : Mr. Sahil Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs: “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 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 3 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.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Data Entry Operator since the year 2007 on daily wage basis, discharging his duties sincerely and efficiently without any complaint or adverse remark, to the satisfaction of his superior authorities. It is further submitted that as per the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahakari Societies Ke Sevayukton Ke Liye Sewaniyam, 2018, framed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, one post of Clerk-cum-Computer Operator has been sanctioned for each society. The petitioner is working against such vacant and sanctioned posts of Data Entry Operator since many years, and repeated representations has been made by the petitioner as well as by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Employees Union, Raipur, requesting regularization of services of Data Entry Operators working in various societies. However, till date, no decision has been taken by the respondents on such representations. On the 4 contrary, the respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice/tender inviting applications for filling up the posts of Data Entry Operator through outsourcing, which is arbitrary and unjustified. Hence, the present petition has been preferred. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ MARKFED submits that the petitioner is the employees of the respondent cooperative society and being the employees of the cooperative society, if any dispute is there the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to approach the Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 5 8. In light of the above submission and settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti