1 2025:CGHC:57433-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12466 of 2025 Santosh Kumar S/o Tanik Ram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 53, Sohpur, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, Through Its Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex, C.B.D., Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Limited (Apex Bank), Through Its Commissioner And Registrar Cooperative Societies, Office At Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Durg, (C.G.) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, In Front Of District Government Hospital, G.E. Road, Durg (C.G.) 5. District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Balod, (C.G.) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Dalli Chowk, Rajnandgaon Road, District Balod (C.G.) 6. Society Manager, Primary Co-Operative Society Limited, Sorar, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.27 10:42:41 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 2/MARKFED : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs: “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Tender Notice dated 19.08.2025 published by the Respondent No. 2. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of services of the Petitioner along with all the consequential benefits. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Data 3 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 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 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. 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