Relinquishment of the right to promotion for a specific vacancy under Rule 28 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, is permanent only for that particular vacancy and does not extinguish the right to be considered for future promotional opportunities.

ORDER

The writ petition is filed to declare non-inclusion of petitioner’s name in G.O.Ms.No.460, dated 31.08.2018 by treating temporary relinquishment of right of promotion as permanent as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to place his name at Sl.No.5 at Roster Point No.13 in the impugned G.O. by reviewing the panel and to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as District Registrar in preference to L.Venkateswara Reddy in the current panel year.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he made an application/representation for relinquishment of his promotion as Grade-I District Registrar for the panel year 2015-16 and the same was accepted and accordingly G.O.Rt.No.718, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 02.07.2016 came to be issued. It is further stated that, during the year 2017, the petitioner made a representation through proper channel, requesting the authority concerned to consider his candidature for promotion as District Registrar during the panel year 2016-17, however, he was not considered for promotion during that panel year. Hence, the writ petition.

The contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3, in brief, are that the request made by the petitioner and two others for relinquishment of promotion to the post of District Registrar was accepted and accordingly G.O.Rt.No.718, Revenue (Regd.I) Department dated 02.07.2016 came to be issued and the petitioner was informed that the relinquishment is final and irrevocable and therefore, his name for promotion during the panel year 2016-17 was not considered as per the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is further stated that thereafter, the Rule-28 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter, will be referred to as ‘the Rules,1996’) was amended to the effect that the relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would not amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was included for the panel year 2025-26 for promotion to the category of District Registrar.

Heard Ms.Samantha Krishna S., learned counsel, representing Sri Amara Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri , learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.

Ms.Samantha Krishna S., learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that simply because the petitioner relinquished his right of promotion for the panel year 2015-16 does not disentitle him from being considered for promotion thereafter. She would further contend that Rule-28 of the Rules, 1996 does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion permanently. Therefore, non-inclusion of name of the petitioner in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.460, dated 31.08.2018 is illegal, arbitrary. However, despite making representation by the petitioner pointing out that his non-inclusion is illegal, the authorities did not consider his name for promotion during panel year 2017-18. She would further contend that therefore, the petitioner’s name shall be placed at Serial No.5 of the impugned G.O. and his name shall be considered for promotion as District Registrar in preference to L.Venkateswara Reddy in the current panel year. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench in G. Boyanna vs. The High Court of A.P., rep. by its Registrar ¹.2009(2) ALD 402 (DB).

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that the petitioner, who relinquished the right of promotion earlier, is bound by the same, which is irrevocable in view of Rule-28 of the Rules, 1996. He would further contend that subsequent to amendment of Rule-28, the name of the petitioner w