Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010426032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21666/2025 Between: 1. K AMARNATH, S/O. K. CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER MPPS SCHOOL, NISSANKAGURGAM KARVEETI NAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VIDYA BHAVAN, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KADAPA REGION, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 2 CHITTOOR. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARVEETI NAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Direction, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the Respondents, in not considering his candidature for promotion as School Assistant, Maths-Telugu in the existing vacancy, in spite of his repeated representations and in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 92 General Administration Services-D, dated 28.08.2023, and the consequential impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2902/C1/2025, dated 31.08.2025, issued by the District Educational Officer, Chittoor as high handed, illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice, by setting aside the same in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 29.04.2026 vide IA No.1 of 2026 in WP No.21666 of 2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the 3 petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated:14.08.20 25 in IA.No.1/2025 issued in W.P.No.21666 of 2025 by dismissing the Writ petition in the interest of Justice and may be pleased to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the Petitioner to amend the main prayer appropriately by adding the sentence “and the consequential Impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2902/C1/2025, dated 31.08.2025, issued by the District Educational Officer,chittoor at appropriate place in the affidavit and in the main prayer in the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.21666 of 2025 O R DE R: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not considering the candidature of the Petitioner for promotion as a School Assistant, Maths-Telugu in the existing vacancy as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner was appointed as SGT in the year 2008. While so, the Petitioner was promoted as a School Assistant, Maths- Telugu and was posted at ZPHS, Garigachinepalle, Kuppam Mandal vide proceedings dated 10.06.2023. As the wife as the wife of the Petitioner is working as Mahila Police at Karvetinagar Mandal and his son suffering with a nerve disorder (epilepsy) and as there was nobody to look after his son, the Petitioner submitted letter foregoing his promotion. Consequently, Petitioner was reverted as S.G.Teacher and posted at Nissankadurgam, Karvetinagar Mandal by order dated 23.06.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought for consideration for promotion to the above mentioned post and had submitted his representations. However, as Respondents are not considering, the present writ petition is filed. 5 3. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5, it is stated that the benefit of extension to Rule 28 of A.P.Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 added by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.92 General Administration Services-D, dated 28.08.2023 can be extended to the candidates who were promoted to achieve the inadequacy in a particular category and reverted at their own request. It is further stated that as on date 21 persons in SC category are working in excess in the said category and representations of the SC candidates is for School Assistant (Maths-Telugu) is achieved and therefore the Petitioner cannot be considered in the vacancies bypassing the seniority. 4. Heard Sri Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 5. The Petitioner was promoted as School Assistant, Maths- Telugu on 10.06.2023 and on account of domestic reasons as mentioned above, the Petitioner had relinquished his promotion on 23.06.2023 i.e. within a period of two weeks. Vide G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 28.08.2023, the extension was introduced to Rule 28 of A.P. Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as under: 6 AMENDMENT In the said rules, in Rule-28, after the proviso, the following shall be added namely:- Explanation: (i) In respect of promotion to a member of service, who has exercised relinquishment of promotion due to any reason, Rule 28 does not disentitle him/her from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right under the Rules for promotion earlier. (ii) 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. The Rule-28 cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his/her right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished. (iii) The relinquishment of an opportunity for promotion, which arose for an employee occupying certain place in seniority list in the panel year, in view of a vacancy that arose then, in view of the fact that he/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/panel year which was available to him/her by virtue of the above mentioned circumstances. The Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. Therefore, the right of the Member of Service shall be considered in future vacancy for promotion, if otherwise eligible. 6. As per the above amended G.O., relinquished persons are considered for promotion in future vacancies and the reasoning given to that effect in the counter affidavit cannot be sustained. 7. Coming to the issue of adequacy, as submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner, six persons were said to have been promoted along with Petitioner, out of which, three persons have 7 not assumed the charge in promotional post and one of the person died. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: (i) Respondents are directed to examine the representation of the Petitioner for promotion without reference to the relinquishment of promotion taking note of his seniority and adequacy. (ii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 23.07.2026 KLP