ORDER (Per P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.)

Whether the petitioner, having turned his back on the promotion given to him earlier, can lay a claim to be considered for promotion thereafter is the short question arising for decision in this writ petition. .

2. The admitted facts of the case are as hereunder:

The petitioner was originally appointed as a Process Server in the Last Grade Service of the Judicial Department. He was appointed on transfer temporarily as a Junior Assistant vide Proceedings in RCA No.35/95, dated 07.02.1995 of the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, second respondent herein. He submitted application dated 23.10.2000 to the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, stating to the effect that his parents had expired two years prior thereto, casting the entire burden of the family upon him. He further cited grounds of ill-health and his lack of understanding of the English language as reasons for his facing difficulty in discharging the duties of a Junior Assistant. He therefore requested the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, to revert him from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Process Server, originally held by him. Acting upon the said representation, by Proceedings in RCA No.273/2000, dated 19.12.2000, the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, reverted the petitioner as requested.

3. After recovering from his illness, the petitioner submitted several representations to the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, seeking promotion to the post of Record Assistant/Reader/Amin. His request was rejected under the Proceedings of the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, dated 24.09.2003 holding that as the petitioner had relinquished his promotion, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion as per Memo No.8/SER-A/84-1, dated 18.01.1984 of the General Administration (Services-A) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application to the High Court on the administrative side, first respondent herein, reiterating his request to be considered for promotion. Having called for and considered the record and the remarks of the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, the High Court on the administrative side, passed orders in ROC NO.1593/2004-CI (I), dated 06.11 .2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner to be considered for promotion in the light of the aforestated Government Memo dated 18.01.1984. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, stating to the effect that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in its Memo dated 18.01.1984 and also Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996'). It was stated that the petitioner, having relinquished the promotion given to him earlier, cannot seek review of the same in the light of the above mentioned instructions and Rule.

5. Sri G. Jagadeeswar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that merely because the petitioner sought reversion to his original post earlier, it cannot be construed that he had given up his right to be considered for promotion for all times to come. He submitted that the petitioner had relinquished his right for promotion due to certain unavoidable circumstances and as he was now in a position to further his career interests, he is entitled to be considered for promotion.

6. On the other hand, Smt. M. Bhaskara Laxmi, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the petitioner having relinquished his right of promotion earlier, is bound by the same and in the light of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 the said relinquishment is deemed to be irrevocable. She submitted that the writ petition was devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed.

7. It is relevant to note at this point that the petitioner was not p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document