Telangana High Court

M. Muralidhar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 June, 2025

                                      1


 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

1st respondent, and Memo No.59/A/DAE/TS/2024, dated 31.05.2024

issued by the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st respondent

issued Memo dated 16.05.2024 to the 2nd respondent stating that the

request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Project

Officer is not feasible, in turn, the 2nd 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 so relinquished. Provided that no conditional or relinquishment or right for a temporary period shall be permitted."

8. It is further stated that in the Adult Education Department,

steps were taken by the authorities to issue promotions to certain

Supervisors as Assistant Project Officers, as per their eligibility and

seniority, in January 2024. While so, the petitioner made a

representation dated 12.01.2024 requesting to consider his

candidature for promotion as Assistant Project Officer. However, the

2nd respondent, while enclosing a copy of the representation of the

petitioner dated 12.01.2024, has brought the entire issue to the notice

of the 1st respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.59/A/DAE/TS/2024, dated

27.03.2024 and requested the Government to take further necessary

action in the matter. Based on the same, the 1st respondent had

issued the impugned Memo dated 16.05.2024 stating that the request

of the petitioner for promotion is not feasible to consider and

accordingly, the 2nd respondent has informed the same to the

petitioner as well as the Deputy Director of Adult Education,

Nalgonda, through impugned Memo dated 31.05.2024.

9. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

further submits that since the petitioner has relinquished his

promotion twice, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned

Memos, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to

be dismissed.

10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the

considered view that in the instant case, the petitioner has

relinquished his promotion to the post of Assistant Project Officer

twice i.e., on 02.08.2016 and 06.01.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner

made a representation on 12.01.2024 requesting to consider his case

for promotion. The respondents have rejected the petitioner's case for

promotion vide impugned memos.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

though the petitioner has relinquished his promotion twice, he is

entitled for promotion, and there is no bar for such promotion. In

support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5621 of

2017, dated 07.06.2017, wherein this Court, while dismissing the said

writ petition, held as follows :-

7. The similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in case of G. Boganna. High Court of A.P., represented by its Registrar Administration), Hyderabad and another (2009 (1) ALT 462 (D.B), where this Court expressed its complete agreement with interpretation of the Rule and pointing out the fact that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, Accordingly held that Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 did 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.

10. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the ratio laid down in G.Boyanna's case, the G.O.Ms.No.227 was issued in the year 2014, without having retrospective effect, whereas, he declined promotion for the panel year 2012-2013. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.227 is not applicable to the 1st respondent.

In view of the above, we find no discrepancy in the order passed by the learned Tribunal therefore we confirmed the same."

12. As per the above judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the

promotion is a Fundamental Right under Article 16(1) of the

Constitution of India and Rule 28 of the Telangana State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, 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.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that though the

petitioner has relinquished his promotion twice, the petitioner is

entitled for promotion without retrospective effect. Hence, instead of

passing the impugned memos rejecting the petitioner's case for