Abdul Rehim, J.

1. All these three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Single Judge. Appellant in these three cases is the party respondent in all three writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, parties are described as in the order in Writ Appeal No.304/2012.

Question arising for consideration is as to whether relinquishment of a claim for promotion made by the first respondent will operate as a permanent bar for promotion in the future arising vacancies.

2. The 1st respondent was appointed as Peon in the 5th respondent's school during the year 1986. When vacancy of a Clerk arose in the year 1993, he submitted relinquishment of promotion, to the Manager. In the year 2006 when another vacancy of Clerk arose due to retirement of one Smt. Radha, Ext.P1 letter withdrawing the relinquishment was submitted by the 1st respondent and he claimed promotion. The Manager accepted the withdrawal of relinquishment and promoted the 1st respondent. The appellant herein, who is admittedly junior to the 1st respondent appointed in the post of Full-Time Menial, objected the promotion. The educational authorities have not approved appointment of the 1st respondent. The Director of Public Instructions had issued orders to promote the appellant, which was challenged by the 1st respondent in a writ petition. This court relegated the matter for decision of the Government. The decision of the Government was initially quashed by this court in Ext.P6 on the ground of procedural violations and directed the Government to take a fresh decision. Ext.P14 is the fresh decision taken after conducting personal hearing of all concerned. The Government observed that the relinquishment made by the 1st respondent in the year 1993 and it was accepted by the Manager and approved by the educational authorities.

Necessary endorsements were made in the service book of the 1st respondent. Hence the withdrawal of relinquishment was not acceptable and therefore the promotion given is beyond the power vested on the Manager. Observing that there is no provision permitting withdrawal of relinquishment, it is found that the promotion given cannot be sustained. Ext.P14 was challenged by the 1st respondent as well as by the Manager in WP (C).Nos.12941/2010 and WP(C).16255/2010, respectively.

3. The petitioner in WP(C).28745/2010, from which WA.No.299/2012 arises, was filed by the Manager of the school. Consequent to promotion given to the 1st respondent the appellant was promoted as Peon. But the said appointment was not approved by the department in the light of the non approval of appointment of the 1st respondent. The refusal of approval of promotion given to the appellant is the subject matter of challenge in that writ petition.

4. Heard; Smt.V.P. Seemanthini, senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.V.A. Mohammed, counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri.Liju Stephen, Government Pleader. The legal question does not remain res integra. A Full Bench of this court in Usha Thayyil vs. State of Kerala 2009 (4) KLT 1 (FB) had upheld the view taken by this court in the decisions in George vs. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 637) and in Rajasree vs. Secretary to Government (2000 (2) KLT 248). In George's case (cited supra) while interpreting provisions contained in Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV A of KER, it was held that a relinquishment submitted on an earlier occasion cannot be used for denying appointment in the subsequently arising vacancy and that there cannot be any permanent relinquishment to the post of Headmaster. In the said case this court deprecated the practice of obtaining relinquishment letter at the time of one's entry in the service. It is held that obtaining of such letter is unjust, illegal and arbitrary which will demoralise an employee. While affirming the view, the Full Bench observed that, the relinquishment given by a teacher while promoting a junior cannot be treated as relinquishment relating to all future appointments of ju