IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

Between:

Nagapur Ramulu.

…Petitioner.

And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Hyderabad and others.

...Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:17.04.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of : Yes/No judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/ : Yes/No Ladyship wish to see the fair copy of judgment _____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH + W.P.No.10152 of 2024 %Dated 17.04.2026 # Nagapur Ramulu.

…Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Hyderabad and others.

...Respondents.

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Raveendhar Malothu.

^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: : Smt M. Shalini, Government Pleader for Services-II ^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri K. Dwarakanath, GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1 (1981) 1 SCC 722

2 (2003) 8 SCC 639

3 (1991) 72 Comp Cas 588

4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 372

5 (2005) 4 SCC 649

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH W.P.No.10152 of 2024 Date:17.04.2026 Between:

Nagapur Ramulu.

0…Petitioner.

And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Hyderabad and others.

...Respondents

ORDER:

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