V.S.Sirpurkar, J.: This is a writ petition by an employee who, at the relevant time, was working as an Assistant in the Court of District Munsif, Periyakulam. We need not go into the history of his career in this judgment. It will be sufficient to say that on 21.10.1993, the petitioner gave a letter to the Principal District Judge, Madurai, under whom he was serving at that time that he was relinquishing his right of promotion to the next higher post temporarily for a period of three years perhaps with an idea to avoid his transfer which would have been a certainty with his promotion. This letter was forwarded by the Subordinate Judge as is apparent from the record. The Principal District Judge passed an order on 11.11.1993 accepting the request of relinquishment. In his order, the Principal District Judge seems to have made a reference to G.O.Ms. No.783, dated 9.8.1982. On 28.4.1994, the petitioner was transferred to Madurai in the same capacity. It transpires from the argument at bar that he did not join and proceeded on one month’s leave and on the very next day of the transfer order i.e., on 29.4.1994 he made an application for revoking the relinquishment which had already come into effect by its acceptance on 11.11.1993. It may not be strictly necessary for us to note that the petitioner was transferred back to Periyakulam without even putting in a day’s service at Madurai. He came back in June, 1994 itself to Periyakulam. He then made another representation on 28.9.1994 reiterating his earlier request for revocation on 29.4.1994. This was rejected by the Principal District Judge by an order dated 15.11.1994. It is this order which is in challenge before us.

2. Mr.Ragavachari learned counsel for the petitioner firstly urges that there was nothing in the Rules to prevent any such relinquishment from being withdrawn. The effect of the relinquishment would have been the denial of promotion to the petitioner and in fact, there was no exercise of effecting the promotions taken up when the said relinquishment was sought to be withdrawn. The learned counsel argues that after all, even if the relinquishment offer was accepted on 11.11.1993, for all practical purposes, there was no reason to refuse the revocation of the said relinquishment, since on the date of revocation there was no effort or exercise on the part of the Administration to effect promotions. According to him, this exercise was sought to be done somewhere in March, 1995 and therefore, the petitioner whose relinquishment offer was accepted on 11.11.1993 was well within his rights to withdraw the same on 29.4.1994. The learned counsel points out that both the order dated 11.11.1993 and the order rejecting the petitioner’s request for revocation dated 15.11.1994 are bereft of any reasons. According to the learned counsel, the order of acceptance of relinquishment is liable to be passed only on consideration that such relinquishment is not opposed to public interest and therefore the District Judge should have given some reasons in the order dated 11.11.1993 to the effect that the relinquishment was not opposed to public interest. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, the District Judge should have atleast given reasons why the request of the petitioner for revocation was being rejected and in the absence of any reasons, the order tends to become an arbitrary order and as such, the right of the petitioner under Art.14 of the Constitution of India is breached.

3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on two reported judgments: (i) Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India, (2000)5 S.C.C. 621 and (ii) J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, (1998)9 S.C.C. 559.

4. As against this, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent points out that this relinquishment had started atleast from the day when it was accepted and as such, it could not be straightaway withdrawn because, there was firstly no provision to withdraw the relinq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document