Judgment :- 1. The appellant having relinquished his claim temporarily fur the post of Headmaster and having become a Headmaster and at a subsequent stage at his own option claims that persons who have been promoted during the interregnum to the cadre of Headmasters being juniors to him in the cadre of High School Assistants cannot have a preferential claim to the appellant in the matter of further promotion. This contention has been negatived by the State Government and on a further representation the earlier decision has been reiterated. The learned single judge has agreed with that view. The clear effect of R.38 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules which deals with the relinquishment of rights by persons like the appellant is stated in the rule itself to the effect that nothing contained in the rules or in 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. In other words, what has been relinquished cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the rights of person who has made the relinquishment. If the contention of the appellant is accepted it would mean that the relinquishment has to be ignored for the purpose of further promotion to the cadre of District Educational Officer. 2. R.38, without the explanation, reads: "38. Relinquishment of rights by members. Any person 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; and 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." It is expressly provided that the right or privilege which has been relinquished is not required to be recognised either under the KS & SSR or the Special Rules. Thus, if a person relinquishes his right to a promotional post, be loses the right to be considered for promotion until the relinquishment ceases. He may be considered for promotion for the first vacancy that arises after the relinquishment ceases. Thus, if a person relinquishes his right to a promotional post, be loses the right to be considered for promotion until the relinquishment ceases. He may be considered for promotion for the first vacancy that arises after the relinquishment ceases. On such promotion he cannot claim seniority over those who had been promoted during the interregnum, i.e., between the date of relinquishment and the date of promotion of the person after the relinquishment ceases. Full effect has to be given to these consequences, having regard to the mandate of R.38, notwithstanding anything contained in R.27 or ether Rules of KS & SSR or the Special Rules. 3. It was contended that as the Explanation to R.38 has been introduced in the year 1982 only, long after the appellant relinquished his right for promotion, the same is not applicable to him, the amendment not having been given retrospective effect. The Explanation reads: "Explanation.- The relinquishment of the right for protection under this rule shall entail less of seniority and a relinquishment of the right for promotion shall not be permissible unless such relinquishment entails loss of seniority." The Explanation makes it clear that relinquishment of the right for promotion under R.38 shall entail less of seniority and that relinquishment of the right for promotion shall not be permissible unless such relinquishment entails loss of seniority. In our opinion, the Explanation which provides that relinquishment of the right for promotion shall entail loss of seniority, only clarities the position flowing from R.38. The same would have been the consequence even without the aforesaid explanation. Therefore, the fact that the Explanation to R.38 has been added only in the year 1982 does not come to the aid of the appellant. 4. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the appellant cannot claim seniority in the promotional cadre of Headmaster over those who bad been promoted after relinquishment of the right for promotion by the appellant and before he was promoted to that cadre after the cessation of his relinquishment. We, therefore, see no good grounds to interfere. The appeal fails and is dismissed.