THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO W.P.No.14798 of 2024

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Memo No.3200/SC-Prog.I/A1/2024, dated 16.05.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent, and Memo No.59/A/DAE/TS/2024, dated 31.05.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioner was appointed as a Statistical Assistant on

05.07.1989 and was posted in the office of the Deputy Director of Adult Education at Nalgonda. Since then, he has been working in the same office. While so, the 2^nd respondent issued a proceeding in Rc.No.771/A/DAE/TS/2014-4, dated 02.08.2016 promoting the petitioner as Assistant Project Officer. On 04.08.2016, the petitioner submitted an application informing that he is relinquishing the said promotion and requested to give a promotion in the next panel, and the same was accepted. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings No.771/A2/DAE/TS/2014-3, dated 06.01.2018, promoting the petitioner as Assistant Project Officer. On 08.01.2018, the petitioner submitted an application informing that he is relinquishing the said promotion and requested to consider his case for promotion in the further process of promotion, and the same was accepted. Subsequently, in January 2024, the 2^nd respondent authority took up the process of promotions, and the petitioner submitted a representation on 12.01.2024 requesting to consider his case for promotion as Assistant Project Officer. The 1^st respondent issued Memo dated 16.05.2024 to the 2^nd respondent stating that the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Project Officer is not feasible, in turn, the 2^nd respondent issued Memo dated 31.05.2024 to the Deputy Director of Adult Education (FAC) Nalgonda, communicating the said decision. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.06.2017 in W.P.No.5621 of 2017 considered the rule position i.e., Rule 28 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and it does not disentitle a member of service from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right for promotion earlier.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that even though the petitioner has relinquished his promotion twice, he is entitled for promotion as Assistant Project Officer, and there is no bar or embargo for such promotion. However, without looking into the said legal position, the respondents erroneously passed the impugned Memos and hence, they are liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has relinquished his promotion to the post of Assistant Project Officer twice, i.e., on 02.08.2016 and 06.01.2018. In so far as the case of the petitioner, the Director of Adult Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad, has scrupulously followed the Rules and Regulations stipulated under Rule 28 of the Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 and the amendments made thereunder by way of G.Os issued by the Government from time to time.

7. Rule-28 of Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 states as follows :-

"Any member of a service may in writing, relinquish any right or privilege to which he may be entitled under these rules or the Special rules, if in the opinion of the appointing authority such relinquishment is not opposed to public interest "such relinquishment once made will be final and irrevocable". Nothing contained in these rules or the special rules shall be deemed to require the recognition of any right or privilege to the extent to which it has been s