1. Challenge to redeployment of contractual employee outside native district under HR policy. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 280
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SARATH, J.
Nagapur Ramulu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Hyderabad and others - Respondents
W.P.No.10152 of 2024
Decided On : 17-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Sri Raveendhar Malothu
For the Respondent : Smt M. Shalini, Government Pleader for Services-II, Sri K. Dwarakanath
Important Points
A body performing public duties under significant government control is 'State' under Article 12. Furthermore, specific contractual agreements to work anywhere in the state override general HR policies regarding native district postings, though medical conditions may justify a reconsidered posting.
Subject
Service Law - Transfer and Posting
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 - Definition of ‘State’ - Maintainability of writ petition - Test for determining whether a body is an instrumentality of State - Functional and purposive analysis based on nature of functions, character of activity, and degree of governmental control - Performance of public duties, government share in capital, control over management, and appointment of directors by the government - Writ petition maintainable against an entity that functionally operates as an authority under the Constitution. (Paras 12-16)
(B) Service Law - Transfer of contractual employee - Right to posting in native district - Conflict between HR Policy and contractual agreement - Where an employee executes a contract agreeing to work anywhere in the State as per exigencies, such contractual obligation overrides general HR policy preferences for native district postings - Employee has no legal right to insist on posting in a native district if the contract allows for redeployment based on administrative exigencies. (Paras 18-22)
Facts of the case:
A contractual employee serving as an Assistant Manager challenged his redeployment to a district other than his native district following his return from medical leave after a bike accident. The employee contended that the HR policy required Assistant Managers to be posted within their native district. The employer argued that the entity was not 'State' under Article 12 and that the employee had contractually agreed to be posted anywhere in the state.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent entity is 'State' under Article 12 because it is controlled by the government, has government-nominated directors, and performs public duties related to poverty alleviation. Regarding the transfer, the court noted that the petitioner had signed contracts specifically agreeing to work anywhere in the state, thereby waiving a legal right to be posted exclusively in the native district.
Issues: Whether the respondent federation constitutes 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether a contractual employee can legally demand posting in a native district despite a contractual agreement to work anywhere in the state.
Ratio Decidendi: An organization is considered 'State' if it performs public functions and is subject to significant governmental control. In employment disputes, a specific contractual agreement to be posted anywhere in the state takes precedence over general HR policy guidelines regarding native district preferences, although medical grounds may be considered for humanitarian flexibility.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to reconsider the posting of the petitioner from the current district to the native district on medical grounds in the existing vacancies and communicate the same within four weeks.
(B) Service Law - Transfer of contractual employee - Right to posting in native district - Conflict between HR Policy and contractual agreement - Where an employee executes a contract agreeing to work anywhere in the State as per exigencies, such contractual obligation overrides general HR policy preferences for native district postings - Employee has no legal right to insist on posting in a native district if the contract allows for redeployment based on administrative exigencies. (Paras 18-22)
Facts of the case:
A contractual employee serving as an Assistant Manager challenged his redeployment to a district other than his native district following his return from medical leave after a bike accident. The employee contended that the HR policy required Assistant Managers to be posted within their native district. The employer argued that the entity was not 'State' under Article 12 and that the employee had contractually agreed to be posted anywhere in the state.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent entity is 'State' under Article 12 because it is controlled by the government, has government-nominated directors, and performs public duties related to poverty alleviation. Regarding the transfer, the court noted that the petitioner had signed contracts specifically agreeing to work anywhere in the state, thereby waiving a legal right to be posted exclusively in the native district.
Issues: Whether the respondent federation constitutes 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether a contractual employee can legally demand posting in a native district despite a contractual agreement to work anywhere in the state.
Ratio Decidendi: An organization is considered 'State' if it performs public functions and is subject to significant governmental control. In employment disputes, a specific contractual agreement to be posted anywhere in the state takes precedence over general HR policy guidelines regarding native district preferences, although medical grounds may be considered for humanitarian flexibility.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to reconsider the posting of the petitioner from the current district to the native district on medical grounds in the existing vacancies and communicate the same within four weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Raveendhar Malothu
For the Respondent: Smt M. Shalini, Government Pleader for Services-II, Sri K. Dwarakanath
For the Petitioner: Sri Raveendhar Malothu
For the Respondent: Smt M. Shalini, Government Pleader for Services-II, Sri K. Dwarakanath
Table of Contents
2. Contractual employee claims right to post within native district; employer contends writ not maintainable and transfer valid per contract. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Respondent-federation is State under Article 12 due to government control and public duties. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Despite being State, no legal right to native district posting exists as contract allows all-State transfer. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
5. Writ disposed; respondents directed to reconsider employee's posting on medical grounds within four weeks. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. Is a Credit Cooperative Federation registered under a state Cooperative Societies Act 'State' under Article 12?
Yes, if the government has substantial control, appoints key management, and the entity performs public duties with government shareholding and employee deputation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Can a contractual employee enforce a right to be posted only in their native district?
No, unless the contract or HR policy creates a binding right. A clause agreeing to work anywhere in the state negates such a claim. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. Is a writ petition maintainable against an entity not strictly 'State' under Article 12?
Yes, a writ can issue against any person or body performing a public duty or positive obligation of a public nature. (Para 13 , 14 )
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
