Judgment : A. Shankar Narayana, J. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order in O.A. No.1885 of 2001, dated 22-03-2001, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article – 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering his case for re-promotion to the post of Head Constable, as arbitrary, unreasonable and consequently, set aside the orders of the 3rd respondent in D.O.No.735/99, dated 24-07-1999 as well as C.No.A1/4265/2000, dated 18-10-2000, including the orders of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 22-03-2001 in O.A. No.1885/2001, and to direct the 3rd respondent to re-promote him to the said post from the date of his representation dated 24-03-2000 with all consequential benefits. 3. A short question that arises for consideration, in the instant writ petition is, whether the petitioner having turned his back on the promotion given to him earlier, can make a claim to be considered for promotion thereafter? 4. The factual background in the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as police constable 347 on 15-07-1973 in the Unit of Nellore District. Based on his seniority, he was sent for two and-a-half (2½) months refresher course training during the year 1997 for police constables fit to act as Head Constables. He has attended the examination at the end of the course, and since he passed the examination, a promotion panel was prepared and the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable vide D.O.No.346/98 (C.No.A1/77/94, dated 09-05-1998), and posted to Kavali II Town police station as Head Constable, and rendered his services as Head Constable up to 24-07-1999. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26-06-1999 to the 3rd respondent, stating that he was not inclined to work as head constable and, therefore, sought reversion and to post him in V Town police station. Acting upon the said representation, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in D.O.No.735/99, dated 24-07-1999, and reverted him as police constable. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26-06-1999 to the 3rd respondent, stating that he was not inclined to work as head constable and, therefore, sought reversion and to post him in V Town police station. Acting upon the said representation, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in D.O.No.735/99, dated 24-07-1999, and reverted him as police constable. Paragraph No.3 of the said order, since relevant for the present purpose is extracted, which is thus: “3) After due consideration of the representation of HC.347 T. Ramana Reddy of V Town P.S. Nellore, his request for his relinquishment of his promotion as H.C. is accepted with reference to Rule No.28 of A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and he is permanently reverted as P.C. with immediate effect and retained in V Town P.S.Nellore. This relinquishment is final and irrevocable.” 5. The petitioner contends that he made a representation dated 24-03-2000, stating that in view of domestic problems, he sought reversion temporarily and they were cleared and when requested for consideration of his case for re-promotion to the post of head constable, the 3rd respondent refused to receive the said representation. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3109 of 2000. While disposing of the said O.A. on 27-07-2000, the Tribunal directed the respondents to receive the representation of the petitioner dated 24-03-2000, for considering his request for promotion again, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 6. Pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3109 of 2000, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings C.No.A1/4265/2000, dated 18-10-2000, stating therein that Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules 1996’), envisages that when a government servant in writing relinquishes his promotional post, such relinquishment will be final and irrevocable, and that under the proviso to the said Rule, no conditional relinquishment or relinquishment of right for a temporary period shall be permitted, rejected the request. 7. 7. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1885 of 2001 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 requesting to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering his case for promotion to the post of head constable as arbitrary and unreasonable, and to set aside the orders of the 3rd respondent in D.O.No.735/1999, dated 24-07-1999, as well as C.No.A1/4265/2000, and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to promote him to the post of head constable from the date of his representation made on 24-03-2000. 8. The Tribunal having heard the contentions of respective counsel, and extracting last four lines of the representation dated 9-06-1999, observing that the last line in vernacular language “………………………………………………………….. (sought for reversion of head constable post temporarily)” was subsequently inserted, and also observing that the rule position envisaged by Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, itself does not allow such condition of temporary relinquishment, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner’s learned counsel, dismissed the O.A. No.1885 of 2001 at the admission stage by order dated 22-03-2001. It is that order which is impugned in the instant writ. 9. Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that merely because the petitioner sought for reversion to his original post earlier, it cannot be construed that he had given up his right to be considered for promotion for all times to come. It is submitted by the learned counsel that due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner had relinquished his right for promotion and once the problems were cleared, he made request for re-promotion and Rule 28 of the Rules 1996 would not lay down an absolute embargo for considering the request for re-promotion. 11. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, contending that the relinquishment, either permanently or temporarily, once made is final and irrevocable as mandated by the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 12. 11. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, contending that the relinquishment, either permanently or temporarily, once made is final and irrevocable as mandated by the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Since the construction and interpretation of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, is relevant to resolve the issue involved herein, for the sake of convenience, Rule 28 is extracted, which reads thus: “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”. 13. Concerning the construction and interpretation of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, a learned Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with it in G. Boyanna v. Registrar (Admn.,), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ( 2009 (2) ALD 402 (DB)). The learned Division Bench extracted certain observations from the earlier decision of another learned Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in District Educational Officer, Kurnool v. Shahnaz Begum (W.P. No.26654 of 2005, dated 09-08-2006), which are referred to in paragraph No.11 therein, as hereunder: “11. 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: “….. 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: “….. 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. The proviso to this Rule contemplates that conditional relinquishment or relinquishment of a right for a temporary period shall not be permitted… 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.” 14. The learned Division Bench in G. Boyanna’s Case (Supra 1), observing that the words “to the extent to which it has been so relinquished”, occurring in the last part of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, assumes significance, held that the extent to which privilege has been relinquished is confined to the privilege to that particular vacancy which was available and the rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. 15. Now, we intend to advert to fact situation occurring in the instant case in examining, whether it has got any bearing in resolving the issue involved on factual side. 16. The petitioner herein was promoted as Head Constable vide proceedings D.No.346/98 (C.No.A1/77/94, dated 09-05-1998), and he assumed the charge of the post of Head Constable. 15. Now, we intend to advert to fact situation occurring in the instant case in examining, whether it has got any bearing in resolving the issue involved on factual side. 16. The petitioner herein was promoted as Head Constable vide proceedings D.No.346/98 (C.No.A1/77/94, dated 09-05-1998), and he assumed the charge of the post of Head Constable. He made a representation on 29-06-1999 to the 3rd respondent stating therein that he was not interested in working as Head Constable, that he cannot perform the duties of Head Constable, that he was feeling difficulty in discharging duties of Head Constable and, therefore, requested o revert him to the post of constable and post him in V Town Police Station. The last sentence in the said representation in vernacular language, is “……………………………………… …………………….”, appears to be not written originally. Perhaps, with a view to circumvent the effect of proviso to Rule 28 of the Rules 1996, it appears that it must have been inserted, which of course, in our view, is of any consequence. However, the reason for reversion sought for by him being that he was not inclined to work as Head Constable as it was difficult for him to discharge the duties as Head Constable, since reflects in unambiguous terms, his incompetency to perform the duties of Head Constable it assumes great significance in the context of whether to accede to or reject his request. 17. We are in complete agreement with the construction and interpretation of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996 that there is no statutory bar for considering the request or representation for re-promotion and that the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996 including the proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also, but the case on hand, is a typical one for the reason that the petitioner herein, who was earlier promoted, on his own volition, got reverted exhibiting his incompetence to discharge the duties of Head Constable. Again, within a span of about nine months, he made a representation for promoting him to the post of Head Constable. Thus, there is subtle distinction between the fact situation occurring in the decisions of the learned Division Benches rendered earlier from the one occurring herein. Again, within a span of about nine months, he made a representation for promoting him to the post of Head Constable. Thus, there is subtle distinction between the fact situation occurring in the decisions of the learned Division Benches rendered earlier from the one occurring herein. The learned Division Bench in G. Boyanna’s Case (1 Supra), while rejecting the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also, since such an interpretation would render the proviso in the rule that such relinquishment will be permanent nugatory, extracted the observations contained in paragraph Nos.42 and 43 of the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal in Smt. S. Swarna Kumari, Senior Assistant v. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool & others (O.A. No.715 of 2004, dated 23-03-2004), as hereunder: “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 inspite of being junior to this member, was promoted to the vacancy relinquished by him in the promotion post. 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 or 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 and unrest in the service defeating the object of promotion efficiency and harmonious function.” (emphasis added). 18. 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 and unrest in the service defeating the object of promotion efficiency and harmonious function.” (emphasis added). 18. It is, thus, clear from the above extracted observations that the interpretation of Rule 28 of the Rules 1996 cannot be read to mean that the right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished, is based on the very object of promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning, as, such an interpretation would lead to frustration and unrest in the service defeating the very object of enacting Rule 28 of the Rules 1996. When the underlying object in enacting Rule 28 of the Rules 1996 including the proviso thereto is susceptible to such interpretation, we are of the considered view, that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to since we have opined in the above, that the reason for reversion projected by the petitioner was not on personal ground, but his incompetence to discharge the functions as Head Constable, more particularly, when in his subsequent representation, dated 24-03-2000, for promotion again to the post of Head Constable, he has not assigned any convincing reason as to how he became fit enough to perform the duties of Head Constable. 19. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and is not in service. Therefore, the question of acceding to the request of the petitioner for affording promotion to the post of Head Constable in the future vacancy, does not arise. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the writ petition is devoid of merit and consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.