APHC010006722022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 31/2022 Between: 1. PANGULURI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. YEARS, OCC SUB REGISTRAR GRADE GUNTUR DISTRICT 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGN BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI 522 503 2. THE DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, A.P., EDUPUGALLU, KRISHNA DISTRICT 523 144 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, GENERAL REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, GUNTUR 4. L VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, SUB REGISTRAR GRADE-I, 0/O. DISTRICT RE DISTRICT prays to declare that non inclusion of applicant's name in G.O.Ms.No. 460 dtd 31-08-2018 by treating the temporary reiinquishment as permanent is illegal, arbitrary and violative cif Principles be pleased to direct the respondents to place the applicant's name at SI.No 5 ahead of L. Venkateswara Reddy, at Roster point No. 13 in the impugned G 0.FINo..160 Revenue (Registration reviewing the panel and further to consider the name of the applicant for promotion as District Registrar in preference to L Venkateswara Reddy in the current panel year and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 31/2022 PANGULURI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARULU AGED 53 YEARS, OCC SUB REGISTRAR GRADE-I, KORITEPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGN-1) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI 522 503 THE DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, A.P., EDUPUGALLU, KRISHNA DISTRICT 523 144 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, GENERAL REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, GUNTUR L VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, SUB REGISTRAR I, 0/O. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,. PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA ...RESPONDENT(S): prays to declare that non inclusion of applicant's name in G.O.Ms.No. 2018 by treating the temporary reiinquishment as permanent is illegal, arbitrary and violative cif Principles of natural justice and consequently be pleased to direct the respondents to place the applicant's name at SI.No 5 ahead of L. Venkateswara Reddy, at Roster point No. 13 in the impugned G 0.FINo..160 Revenue (Registration-I) Department dtd 31. viewing the panel and further to consider the name of the applicant for promotion as District Registrar in preference to L Venkateswara Reddy in the current panel year and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 31/2022 VENKATESWARULU AGED 53 I, KORITEPADU, GUNTUR, ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS SPECIAL CHIEF 1) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THE DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, A.P., EDUPUGALLU, KRISHNA DISTRICT 523 144 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, GENERAL REGISTRATION AND L VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, SUB REGISTRAR GISTRAR,. PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA ...RESPONDENT(S): prays to declare that non inclusion of applicant's name in G.O.Ms.No. 2018 by treating the temporary reiinquishment as permanent is of natural justice and consequently be pleased to direct the respondents to place the applicant's name at SI.No 5 ahead of L. Venkateswara Reddy, at Roster point No. 13 in the impugned G I) Department dtd 31.-08-2018 by viewing the panel and further to consider the name of the applicant for promotion as District Registrar in preference to L Venkateswara Reddy in the RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 2 1. AMARA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Reserved on : 12.02.2026 Pronounced on : 27.02.2026 Uploaded on : 27.02.2026 RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 3 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 4 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 5 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 Registrar1. 6. 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 was placed for promotion in the panel year 2025-26. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in not considering the name of the petitioner for promotion during the panel year 2017-2018. The writ petition 1.2009(2) ALD 402 (DB) RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 6 lacks merit and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Rule-28 of the Rules, 1996 reads as hereunder: “28. Relinquishment of rights by members:- Any member of a service may, in writing, relinquish any right or privilege to which he may be entitled to, 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 relinquishment or relinquishment of right for a temporary period shall be permitted.” 9. The application dated 19.01.2016 submitted by the petitioner to the Director & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps relinquishing adhoc promotion to the post of District Registrar for the panel year 2015-18 was accepted by the Government and G.O.Rt.No.718, dated 02.07.2016 was issued to the said effect whereby the petitioner was informed that the relinquishment is final and irrevocable. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.460, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 31.08.2018 promoting nine (09) individuals as District Registrars for the panel year 2017- 18 without considering the candidature of the petitioner for such promotion though eligible. The learned Assistant Government Pleader refuted the RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 7 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground 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. 11. Therefore, what was the true construction and interpretation of Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996 germane for the present purpose. 12. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in G.Boyanna vs. The High Court of A.P., rep. by its Registrar (supra 1), a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with the similar issue. The learned Division Bench extracted the observations made by another Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in The District Educational officer, Kurnool vs. Shahnaz Begum, wherein the learned Division Bench quoted with approval the observations made by the A.P.State Administrative tribunal in Smt.S.Swarna Kumari v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (O.A.No.715 of 2004, dated 23.03.2004). The observations extracted by the learned Division Bench are replicated hereunder: “13. A learned Division Bench of this Court had occasion to deal with the construction and interpretation of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 in its unreported judgment in District Educational Officer, Kurnool v. Shahnaz Begum, W.P. No. 26654 of 2005, dated 9.8.2006. Therein, the learned Division Bench quoted with approval the observations made by the A.P. State Administrative Tribunal in Smt. S. Swarna Kumari v. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (O.A. No. 715 of 2004, dated 23.3.2004). The observations extracted by the learned Division Bench are replicated hereunder: RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 8 “……..A careful perusal of Rule-28, extracted above, would reveal the following: (1) An option is given to any member of a service to relinquish any right or privilege to which he may be entitled to, under the relevant rules (this includes right or privilege of promotion). (2) Such relinquishment is subject to acceptance of the appointing authority, who must be satisfied before acting upon such relinquishment that such relinquishment was not opposed to public interest. (3) Such relinquishment once made will be final and irrevocable. (4) Once such relinquishment has come into force, the authorities concerned shall not be required to recognize any right or privilege to the extent to which it has been so relinquished. 14. The proviso to this Rule contemplates that conditional relinquishment or relinquishment of a right for a temporary period shall not be permitted…….. 15. … ……Viewed in this context, a relinquishment of a right or privilege to promotion would only mean that his right to be considered for promotion, while he Was occupying a particular place in the seniority list, at a time when he was eligible for promotion by virtue of passing of the tests etc., as required under the then existing rules and in respect of a vacancy, that has arisen at the relevant time has been relinquished. This relinquishment may be permanent. 16. It is true that conditional relinquishment is not permissible. What is means is that in respect of that particular opportunity for promotion a member of a service cannot relinquish with a rider that he would claim that privilege of promotion on the happening of certain contingency. For example, if a member of a service has relinquished his right or privilege of promotion on the ground of his sickness, he cannot be allowed to claim that offer of promotion may be revived after he is cured of his sickness. 17. Similarly, the provision that he cannot be permitted to relinquish temporarily would mean that in respect of a particular opportunity for promotion, the employee cannot be allowed to claim that the offer of promotion may be kept open for him for a particular period. 18. The real question is what privilege or right has been relinquished? 19. This assumes significance in view of tin language used in Rule-28 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules which is to the following effect: RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 9 “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.” 20.This would indicate that the authorities concerned are not required to recognize any right or privilege of a member of a service to the extent to which it has been so relinquished. The words “to the extent to which it has been so relinquished” appear significant. 21. So, the question, therefore, is where a member of a service, who had a privilege or a right to be considered for promotion, at a particular stage, has relinquished his right, the relinquishment has to be interpreted in the background of what has been stated above that a privilege or right of promotion depends on concatenation of several circumstances, the extent of relinquishment has to be determined in the context of that particular occasion when the right or privilege for promotion had arisen for a member of a service. The relinquishment of an opportunity for promotion, which arose for an employee occupying certain place in seniority list in the year 2001, in view of a vacancy that arose then, in view of the fact that she was eligible for promotion in the light of the criteria laid down in the Rules, would mean that the extent the privilege has been relinquished is confined to the privilege related to that particular vacancy which was available to her by virtue of the abovementioned circumstances. The Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. 22. The learned Government Pleader seeks to contend that such an interpretation would render the provision in the Rule that such relinquishment will be permanent nugatory. We are unable to accept this contention. 23.As far as that particular vacancy is concerned, the employee's relinquishment is final. He cannot claim later that he may be deemed to have been promoted to that particular vacancy and that his seniority may be fixed as if he was promoted to that vacancy. Accepting such interpretation would mean that if a member of service, who has relinquished his promotion, at one stage, is promoted subsequently when another vacancy arose, he will be junior to a person, who in spite of being junior to this member, was promoted to the vacancy relinquished by him in the promotion post. 24.In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule-28 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished. Such an interpretation would lead to frustration RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 10 and unrest in the service defeating the object of promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning… …” (emphasis added). 25. The learned Division Bench in that case, expressed its complete agreement with the above 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, it was held that Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 did not disentitle a member of a service from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right for promotion earlier. 26. We find ourselves in consensus with the opinion of the learned Division Bench in the above judgment. The mere fact that the petitioner sought reversion earlier on personal grounds did not disentitle him from being considered for promotion thereafter. The reliance placed upon the Memo dated 18.1.1984 was utterly misconceived as pointed out hereinabove and Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion permanently. This being the legal position, the rejection of the petitioner's request to be considered for promotion on the ground of his alleged relinquishment is unsustainable.” 13.The observations made supra would in unambiguous and clear terms say that relinquishment of right of promotion to a particular vacancy would amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy only and the Rule-28 cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished. 14. 14. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996 did not disentitle a member of a service from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right for promotion earlier. Hence, RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 11 the contention advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that since the petitioner had relinquished his right of promotion for panel year 2015-16 disentitles him from seeking promotion in the subsequent panel year 2017-18 is unsustainable, in view of the interpretation given by Division Bench of this Court in the above referred decision. 15. In view of the above, non-inclusion of name of the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.460, dated 31.08.2018, rejecting his request to be considered for promotion on the ground of his alleged relinquishment is unsustainable. Therefore, non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.460, dated 31.08.2018 is illegal. 16. The O.A. questioning non-inclusion of his name was filed by the petitioner in the year 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). Following the abolition APAT by the Central Government in early 2020, all service-related cases of state government employees were transferred to this Court and the O.A. filed by the petitioner was renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.31 of 2022. 17. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that settled seniority and promotion positions cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time, particularly when no stay was granted against the promotions. Admittedly, the G.O.Ms.No.460, dated 31.08.2018 has not been stayed either RC,J W.P(AT).No.31 of 2022 12 by APAT or by this Court. As many as seven (07) years have elapsed since the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.460. 18. In view of the above, even though the petitioner has been wronged in rejecting his request for considering him for promotion on the false and incorrect interpretation of Rule-28 of the Subordinate Service Rules, in view of passage of seven (07) years of time without any interim order makes it impossible to grant relief without causing unfairness to other individuals and therefore, this Court is reluctant to disturb the promotions of those already in place. 19. Therefore, instead of unsettling the settled promotions, this Court deems it fit to direct the authorities to grant monetary benefit, instead of position to the petitioner, by granting promotional increments and benefits, if any, entitled to by the petitioner, from the date of issuance of G.O.No.460, dated 31.08.2018, as if the petitioner has been promoted. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 27th February, 2026. RR