1 2025:CGHC:53211-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5681 of 2025 Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Brijlal Sahu Aged About 38 Years Posted As Computer Operator, Prathamik Krishi Saakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Rohra, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Head Office, C.B.D. Sector- 21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector Baloda-Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.01 11:49:57 +0530 2 6 - The District Marketing Officer Baloda-Bazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Baloda-Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 8 - The Society Manager Prathamik Krishi Saakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Rohra, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 9 - The President Prathamik Krishi Saakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Rohra, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate For MARKFED : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the 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. 3 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. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Data Entry Operator since the year 2012 on daily wage basis, discharging their duties sincerely and efficiently without any complaint or adverse remark, to the satisfaction of their 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 have been made by the petitioner as well as by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Employees Union, 4 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 authority 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 employee of the respondent cooperative society and being the employee of the cooperative society, if any dispute is arrived 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 of India 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. 5 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 submissions 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 instant writ petition stands 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 $.Bhilwar