The High Court · 2025

. Petition rn Jerr Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'cun stances stated in the affidavit fil,,:d r support of the petition, the High Court mat be pleased to suspend the rnertos ssued by the respondent No. 1 and 2 lrulhrtrities in [\,4emo No.3200/SC-Proct.lt/,112024, dated 16-05-2024 anl Memo No. 5glAlDAEnSl2)i'4 dated 31-O5-2O24, thereby dir':ct to consider the representation of tf r, petitioner Cated '12-01-2024, for prcmot on < f the petitioner as Assistant Prlj(,,c i ()fficer. Counsel for the Pe1:itioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for ther Fle s pondents: GP FOR SERVICES-l The Court made thr: following: ORDER 1, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHUIAR RAO W.P.No. 14798 of 2o24 t l ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Memo No.320OlSC,Prog.I/Al/2024, dated 16.05.2024 issued by the 1"t respondent, and Memo No.59/A/DAElTSl2024, dated 31.05.2024 issued by the !"a 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 ofhce of the Deputl, Directol of Adult Education at Nalgonda. Since then, he has been u.orking in the same office. While so, the 2na respondent issued a proceeding in Rc.No.771lA/DAE/TSl2Ol4-4, dated 02.08.2O16 promoting the petitioner as Assistant Project Officer. On 04.O8.2O 16, 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 sarne was accepted. Thereafter, the 2"a respondent issued proceedings No.77l/A2IDAEITS/2014-3, dated 06.01.2O18, promoting the petitioner as Assistant Project Officer. On 08.01 .2018, r I 2 the petitior c ; ubmitted an application inform ing that he is ref inquishinll he said promotion and requested to :onriider his case for promotro e ut the further process of promotion, anci .-he suune was accepted. S rl,:;equently, in Jalu ary 2024, the 2"i respondent authorit-_v to tl. i l) the process of promotions, ar d t he petitioner submitted a r('p- rscntation on 12.o1.2024 requesting tc consider his case for proln, )tr ( ,n as Assistant project officer. Th e 1 't respondent issued Memc rla:,:,1 16.05.2024 to the 2.a responden: sti Lting that the request of th,: Pr, r i-ioner for promotion to the posr. of Ass.stant project officer is not f.asible, in turn, the 2nd respondenl issued Mbmo dated 31.o5.2024 t. h : )eputy Director of Adult Education (F1 c) Nalgonda, communicatirg tl rr-' said decision. Aggrieved therreby, t he petitioner has filed the 1>r::se rrt rvrit petition.

4. Learned c rir rsel appearing for the petitioner sulrmils that under similar circunrs _:t1 (res, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

07.06.2017 ir. \v i) No.5621 of 2or7 considered the rule position i.e., Rule 28 of th. 'l'<:l 1.gana State a,d subordinate service ilules, 1996, and it does n rt cli senritle a member of service from t,einil considered for promotiori ir- a future vacancy merely be,:au ;e te/ she had relinquished h is i h :r right for promotion earlier. 5' Learned crLL rsei appearing for the petitioner lurtrrer submits that even tholLgrr L-e petitioner has relinquished his prorr otion twice, I I 3 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 ald 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 ancl

06.01.2018. In so far as the case of the petitioner, the Director of Adult Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad, has scrupulousl-v followed the Rules and Regulations stipulated under Rule 28 of the Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Serrice Rules, 1996 and the amendments made thereunder by way of G.Os issued by the Government from time to time.

7. Rule-28 of Telalgana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, I996 states as follows :- "Ang member of a seruice mag in uiting, relinquish ang ight or priuilege to uhich he mag be entitled under these rules or the Special rules, if in tLe opinion of the appointing outhority such relinquishment i.s not opposed to public interest "such relinquishment once made uill be final and ireuocable". Nothing contained in these ntles or the special rules sholl be deemed to require the recognition of ang right or piuilege to the ertent to uthich it has been so relinquished. Prouided that no conditional or relinquishment or ight for o temporary period shall be pennitted." 7'f 4 It rs furtht:' stated that in the Adult Education Department, 8. steps were t,rl en bv the authorities to issue pl om,)tiorls to certain Supervisors r1s .r\;sistant Project ofhcers, as per thr:ir eligibility and senioritv, in Iett taw 2024- While so, the pe''itrorler made a representation c lirted 12.O1.2024 requesting t(' c onsider his candidature br .-.romotion as Assistant Project Officer. However, the 2.d responden', ,t-hile enclosing a copy of the represertation of the petitioner dat.ecl I i.O1.2024, has brought the entire ir;sue to the notice of the 1"1 rt,slrrnclent vide Lr.Rc.No.59/ AlD,\ElTSl2024, dated

27.O3.2024,rn(l I(quested the Government to take f urtl Ler' necessa-ry action in thr-' mz.t ter. Based on the same, the 1"' respondent had issued the inLp',rt1 red Memo dated 16.05.2024 stating thzrt the request of the petit'or-rr:r for promotion is not feasible 1o (ronsider and accorclingly. tr Ic 2,,l respondent has informec ttte r;ame to the petitioner ar; s < 11 as the Deputy Director of 1.du1'- Education, Naigonda, th:-orrrlrr impugned Memo dated 31 .O5.2024. g. Learne<l Cir vernment Pleader appearing f or the respondents further subrn ts that since the petitioner hzLs 'elir'-quished his promotion tv,rle. tl-re respondents have rightly passcd the impugned Memos, and r,1'rr I c are no grounds to interfere witll the same. Therefore, th,: ,r'r'it petition is devoid of merits and th€ sarne is liable to be dismisserl 5

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 Assistalt 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. 1 l. 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.562 1 of 2Ol7, dated 07.06.2OI7, 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 bg its Regtstrar Administrdtion), Hgderabad and another (2OO9 (1) ALf 462 (D.B), u.there this Court expressed its complete agreement u.tith interpretation of the Rule and pointing out the fact that the right to be con-sidered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, Accordingly held thdt Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 did not disentitle a member of seruice from beirLg considered for I i I I 6 promoticn. it a future uocancA merelg because l''et'sie had relinquisltt'ci tL's,/ her right for promotion earlier'

10. In r,tt c, tt'tsiclered opinion, keeping in uiet't the rctio Loid doun in C).Rcgartna's case, the G.O.Ms'No'227 uas i:;sued in the gear 2C 1 .. t,ithout hauing retrospectiue effect, u'her'tas' he cleclinerl 'tr'ttLotion for the panel gear 2O1i' 20 L3 Thus, G.O.Ms..\r .1, ',' is not applicable to the l't respondent ln ui.eu of the aboue, ue Jind no discrepantcy nt tl .e order passed b r the learned Tibunal therefore ute coitfim ted tLrc same.

12. As per ',hr: :t,ove judgment of a Division Bench ')f tlris Court, the promotion i:; a Fundamental Right under Artic e 6(.1) of the Constitution c,f ndia and Rule 28 of the Telangan I State and Subordinate Sr:r'r i,:e Ruies, 1996, does not disontil.le ir member of service f1s6 l:eirrg considered for promotion in a fu.ure vacancy merely becar-1s," -e /she had relinquished his/her right lrr promotion earlier. 1 3. Therefo re t r is Court is of the considered vieu' tha t though the petitioner hzLs :-r linquished his promotion twice, r.he petitioner is entitled for pron-.o'-ion without retrospective effect-. Ilent:e, instead of passing the i rn o tLgned memos rejecting the pretitiont r's case for promotion, the re spondents ought to have considere,l the petitioner's case for pronrotiori to the post of Assistant Project Off cer based on the representation lit ,:d 12.O1 .2024 made by the petitioner. 7

14. Therefore, the impugned Memos dated 16.O5.2024 and 3I.O5.2O24 issued by respondent Nos. I and 2, respectiveiy, are liable to be set aside, and they are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner,s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Project orficer, without retrospective effect, based on his representation dated 12.01.2024, if he is otherwise eligible, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner is promoted as Assistant project ofrrcer, he is not entitled for the service benefits with retrospective effect.

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as t<r costs. //TRUE COPY// 1 The Principal Secretary to the School Education Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER epartment, Secretariat '2. rhe Director of Adult Education, Telangana state, School Education Complex, Saifabad, HYderabad.

3. One CC to SRI K.VENUIMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 4.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICES.I,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies To, W BSR GJP HIGH COUIRI' DATED:1810G12025 i- .) 21 Ult ::t-t,.- I]. --i-- 'l: ,..:. \--.. ,:.. a'{ 2025 i )) .'i ll .f i' ORDER WP.No.14798 of 2024 DISPOSING oF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT (:]I'ISTS 1 il t