ORDER :

K.SARATH, J.

Heard Sri Raveendhar Malothu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondent No.1 and Sri K. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in redeploying the petitioner other than his native District i.e., Wanaparthy instead of Nagarkurnnol District contrary to the General Conditions of the HR Policy as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working as Assistant Manager on contract basis in the respondent-Federation has sustained injuries in bike accident. Initially, he has applied leave for a period of three months from 05.01.2023 to 04.04.2023 and the same was sanctioned by the superior authorities. After recovering from injuries, the petitioner made application to rejoin his duties along with fitness certificate and the respondent No.2 has referred his case to the Medical Board. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has issued proceedings vide O.O.No.06/Admn/SN/ 2023-24 dated 22.03.2024 by posting the petitioner in Wanaparthy District instead of Nagarkurnool District, which is not permissible according to the HR policy of the management. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.2 on 23.03.2024 and the same was rejected on 01.04.2024 and instructed him to report as per the existing orders in Wanaparthy District on 15.04.2024.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per General Conditions of service in HR policy, in case of transfer of Assistant Managers, they will be posted within native District and are liable to be transferred within same District and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 based on the counter submits that the respondent No.2 is a Credit Cooperative Federation Limited registered under Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the petitioner is in contractual relationship with the respondent-Federation and the writ petition is not maintainable as the impugned order of transfer is in the interest of the respondent- Federation and it does not come within the definition of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager on contract basis vide letter dated 27.12.2019 in Nagarkurnool District and his services are governed by the terms and conditions of contract agreement executed by him and HR policy of the respondent Federation and his place of posting and transfer policy is governed by Clause 6.11 of the contract dated 19.03.2024. Chapter-VI of the HR Policy clearly provides that the petitioner should be ready to work anywhere in the State as per the exigencies of the Federation.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that after submission of fitness certificate, the petitioner’s services were renewed on contract basis on 19.03.2024 and his request for rejoining was accepted subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein and issued office order on 22.03.2024 redeploying him to Wanaparthi District due to administrative exigencies and certain Mandals were identified as the operational area.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that the respondent-Federation after its inception, formulated HR Policy dated 31.07.2015 and subsequently in the year, 2024, the HR Policy was revised and the relevant clauses dealing with postings and transfers. He submits that primarily the employment contract provides the terms and conditions of employment and the petitioner has initially executed a contract on 20.01.2020 and subsequently executed a new contract on 19.03.2024 and as per Clause 6.11 of the existing contract, he can be posted anywhere in the State and requested to dismiss the writ petitio