Judgment : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 110. 1996 of the Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Tamil Nadu Archives, Madras and for direction not to fix the seniority of the second respondent above the petitioner in the category of Assistant. .2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: .The petitioner was initially appointed as Record clerk on compassionate ground on 111. 1986. Since, he had possessed the qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant, he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 6. 1988 in the District Records office, Salem. On completion of departmental tests, he was promoted as Assistant by order dated 29. 1996 of the first respondent. The second respondent who was senior in the category or Junior Assistant relinquished her right for promotion as Assistant and the said relinquishment was accepted and acted upon by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant by the first respondent on 29. 1996 and he joined as Assistant on 30.9.1996 in Tamil Nadu Archives, Madras-8. 3. While so, the first respondent has issued an order dated 110. 1996 stating that the second respondent has given a representation on 10. 1996 wherein she had expressed her willingness to be promoted as Assistant and consequently, she was promoted as Assistant and placed above the petitioner in the category of Assistants. Aggrieved by the said order dated 110. 1996, the petitioner has preferred Original Application No. 6132 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal which has been transferred and renumbered as the present writ petition. 4. Assailing the impugned order dated 110. 1996, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent had already relinquished her right for promotion to the post of Assistant and her relinquishment was also acted upon. Referring to Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services General rules, he submitted that temporary relinquishment will be in operation for three years and permanent relinquishment will be in operation for ever. Therefore, even assuming that the second respondent had withdrawn her relinquishment, there is no provision under the rules for accepting her request for promotion within three years from the date of acceptance of such relinquishment and therefore, the promotion ordered to the second respondent and the consequential revision of seniority of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to statutory rules. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that revision of seniority in the post of Assistant would affect the chances of promotion of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent ought to have given sufficient opportunity by issuing a show cause notice before revising the seniority. Hence, he pleaded that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and contended inter alia that during the relevant time, three vacancies of Assistant arose in the Head office of Tamil Nadu Archives in Chennai. As per the rules, the vacancies were to be filled up by promotion from among the Junior Assistants and Typists, for which a combined seniority list was maintained. The names of (i) Tmt. M. Jayamani, Typist, District Record Centre, Coimbatore (ii) A.V. Srinivasan, Typist, Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, (iii) K.M.C. Sridhar, Junior Assistant, Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai and (iv) N.S. Anandhakumar, Junior Assistant, Tamil Nadu Archives. Chennai were included in the panel, according to seniority as per the date of appointment in the post of Junior Assistant mentioned in the combined list, maintained for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant. 7. The first respondent has further submitted that at the relevant time, the post of Assistant was not a selection post and as such, promotion was made according to seniority. Before filling up the vacancies, Tmt. M. Jayamani, Typist, District Record Centre, Coimbatore gave a representation dated 20.9.1996 requesting that she might be posted as Assistant in the District Record Centre, Coimbatore itself, in the event of her promotion to that post and that due to the family circumstances, she requested not go give posting in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai. .8. It is also the case of the first respondent that in her representation, she had made it clear that in any event, her promotion should be without detriment to her seniority. Therefore, it is submitted that her request was only with regard to place of posting, but not for relinquishing her right of promotion. Though her request was sympathetically considered, but there was no vacancy in District Record Centre, Coimbatore and hence, it was decided to promote the next juniors temporarily, until a vacancy in District Record Centre, Coimbatore arose. Accordingly, her juniors viz. Though her request was sympathetically considered, but there was no vacancy in District Record Centre, Coimbatore and hence, it was decided to promote the next juniors temporarily, until a vacancy in District Record Centre, Coimbatore arose. Accordingly, her juniors viz. (1) Thiru A.V. Srinivasan (ii) Thiru K.M.C. Sridhar and (iii) Thiru N.S. Anandha Kumar were promoted temporarily as Assistants in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, in proceedings No. 11616/A2/96 dated 29. 1996. While doing so, it was clearly mentioned in the above proceedings that Tmt. Jayamani has given a representation dated 20.9.1996 expressing her willingness for the place of posting in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai. Even though, her seniority rights was protected and her juniors were promoted only temporarily under Rule 39(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Apprehending that she would be losing her seniority, Tmt. Jayamani, the second respondent herein gave another representation dated 10. 1996 requesting for promotion as Assistant and for posting in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, if it is not possible to post her in District Record Centre, Coimbatore. It is submitted that her juniors were promoted only temporarily under Rule 39(a) of the rules, in view of the urgent necessity of filling up of the vacancies in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, expecting a vacancy in District Record Centre, Coimbatore, to comply with the genuine request of the Senior Person viz. the second respondent. Considering her later representation dated 10. 1996, she was promoted as Assistant and posted in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, by retaining her seniority in the feeder category post of Junior Assistant. 9. According to the first respondent, the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant is purely temporary under Rule 39(a) of Rules and it does not confer any right for the purpose of seniority. It is further submitted that the rights of the appointing authority to regularize the services (i.e.) to determine the date of commencement of probation is reserved with the appointing authority under Rule 39(f) of the general rules. It is further submitted that the rights of the appointing authority to regularize the services (i.e.) to determine the date of commencement of probation is reserved with the appointing authority under Rule 39(f) of the general rules. It is further submitted that as per the proviso to Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules, if juniors and seniors were appointed by same method of recruitment (in the present case by temporary promotion under Rule 39(a) of the rules) and where the juniors were appointed earlier than the seniors, the senior shall be deemed to have been appointed to the service on the same day in which the junior was so appointed and therefore, the revision of seniority prayed for by the petitioner, taking into consideration the rank of second respondent, in the feeder category of Junior Assistant is not justified. 10. The first respondent has further submitted that the representation of the second respondent dated 20.9.1996 could be construed only as a request not to post her as Assistant in the place or Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai and it cannot be construed that she has once in for all relinquished her right of promotion to the post of Assistant. 11. The respondent has further submitted that as temporary appointment under Rule 39 (a) of the rules does not confer any right of seniority, the competent authority is empowered to take into consideration the date of appointment in the feeder category post viz. Junior Assistant, as per 35(aa) and 35(f) of the rules and the question of issuing a show cause notice does not arise and hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. A perusal of the pleadings reveal that when the first respondent called for willingness to work in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, in her representation dated 20.9.1996, the second respondent has expressed her unwillingness to work, in the event of promotion to the post of Assistant in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai due to her family circumstances and she might be considered for the said post, where she was working. 14. It is the specific case of the first respondent that nowhere stated in her representation that she had relinquished her right of promotion for the post of assistant. 14. It is the specific case of the first respondent that nowhere stated in her representation that she had relinquished her right of promotion for the post of assistant. She had only expressed her intention for retention in District Record Centre, Coimbatore. If the requisition of the second respondent dated 20.9.1996 was to be construed as relinquishment of her rights, then there is no meaning in seeking for promotion and retention in District Record Centre, Coimbatore. If a person expressed his relinquishment of right for promotion either temporarily or permanently, such a request should be in clear terms. Right to consider for promotion is now recognized as a fundamental right and if a Government servant decides to forego and surrender his rights, there should not be any ambiguity seeking retention in a particular place in the event of promotion cannot be construed as relinquishment. Further, there was an order of communication to the second respondent that her offer to surrender of forego her right, has been accepted. In the case on hand, it is clear from the representation, that the unwillingness of the second respondent was with reference to the place of posting and it cannot be construed as relinquishment of her right for promotion to the post of Assistant. 15. It is further evident from the order of promotion granted to others dated 29. 1996, there is no reference to any relinquishment of right of the second respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant. Therefore it is clear that to avoid administrative inconvenience, the first respondent has resorted to temporary promotion under Rule 39 (a) of the Rules and in such circumstances, the petitioner and others were promoted temporarily. Such promotion in administrative extingencies would not confer any right for claiming seniority, in view of specific provisions under Rule 35(aa) and 39(f) of the rules, where the competent reserves the right of determining the seniority Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the respondent, the representation dated 20.9.1996 of the second respondent cannot be construed as relinquishment of right under Rule 47 of the General Rules in the absence of unequivocal relinquishment of her right for promotion to the post of Assistant. 16. 16. According to the respondent, if a Government servant relinquishes his right for promotion, an order to that effect would be passed or at least, there should have been a reference in the promotion orders given to the second respondent’s juniors. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in a position to produce any order of acceptance of relinquishment under Rule 47 of the General Rules. As stated supra, the promotion order dated 29. 1996 of the first respondent to the petitioner and others does not indicate the acceptance of relinquishment of right of the second respondent either temporarily or permanently, in terms of Rule 47 of the said Rules. In the circumstances, when the second respondent, being a senior submitted a further representation dated 10. 1996 expressing her intention for posting in Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, the said representation has been considered and accordingly, she was promoted as stated supra. As there is no relinquishment of right as per the statutory rules (sic) there is no need for passing any further order with regard to revision of seniority in the post of assistant, by issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, taking into consideration, the feeder category of seniority in the rank of assistant as between the petitioner and the second respondent. Admittedly, the second respondent is senior and therefore, when she was appointed to the post of assistant, she was placed above the petitioner in the category of assistant. Just because the petitioner was promoted as assistant on earlier date temporarily that would not clothe the petitioner any legal right for claiming seniority above the second respondent. In view of the above, I do not find any manifest illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the first respondent. In these circumstances, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.