Judgment :- The petitioner is a salesman working in the fourth respondent Society. The petitioner gave a representation stating that he should be considered for the post of Attender in the Society, as he is fully qualified in terms of the rules framed under Rule 149 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. Instead of appointing the petitioner as Attender, it now transpires that the fifth respondent who is working as Attender in some other Society has been brought and re-deployed in the fourth respondent Society. It is that order the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. The first contention was that the rule does not provide for such re-deployment. The second contention was that the petitioners request for appointing the petitioner to the said post is pending and therefore, without observing the principles of natural justice, the fifth respondent was brought to the fourth respondent society, which is illegal. 3. Insofar as the first argument is concerned, there is no concept for redeployment in a Cooperative society and hence the said argument is only stated to be rejected, because the amended Rule 2(A) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Coopeative Societies Rules has been made in G.O.Ms.No.326, Cooperation dated 23.12.2007 which reads as follows: "149 (2(A)): A Society may transfer an employee to another society for a period of not less than one year on deputation basis and the other society may avail the services of that employee on the terms and conditions agreed to by both the Society: Under the said provision, the Society can transfer any employee to another society for a period not less than one year and the other society may avail the services of that employee. Therefore, in the present case, the Registrar felt that the fifth respondent has to be sent on deputation to the fourth respondent society for a period of one year. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that there is no rule for redeployment, whether it is called as re-deployment or deputation, in effect, it only means that an employee of one society is sent for limited period to another society. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that there is no rule for redeployment, whether it is called as re-deployment or deputation, in effect, it only means that an employee of one society is sent for limited period to another society. The second argument that the petitioners claim is still pending and therefore the post cannot be filled up with an outsider, it must be stated that the post was not occupied and it is only a foreign service deputation. In the present case, the Registrar has approved the fifth respondents redeployment to the fourth respondent society only for a period of one year. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that his request has been rejected or some other person is posted to the said place. 4. In the light of the above, the grievance ventilated by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are also dismissed.