ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is employed as Assistant Textile Designer in the Directorate of Handloom and Apparel Export Park, Hyderabad, has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, rejecting his plea for the creation of a promotional post for him. 2. Heard Mr. D. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I (Andhra Pradesh) appearing for the respondents nos. 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner was originally selected and appointed as Assistant Textile Designer, by the proceedings dated 31.7.1989. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner had an avenue of promotion to the next higher post of Textile Designer. But the post of Textile Designer was abolished by the Government, by proceedings dated 13.8.1996. 4. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in O.A. No. 5642 of 1996 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, challenging the abolition of the post of Textile Designer and seeking at least the equation of the post of Assistant Textile Designer to that of Development Officer so that he could gain promotion to the post of Assistant Director. 5. The said application was disposed of, holding that his prayer for providing a channel of promotion or alternatively to equate the post to that of Development Officer cannot be granted, but however making it clear that it will not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioner for providing a promotional channel. 6. However, by proceedings dated 09.8.2004, the claim of the petitioner for creating a channel of promotion, on the basis of the observations made by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 5642 of 1996, was rejected by the Government on the ground that even the post of Assistant Textile Designer held by him had been abolished by G.O.Ms. No. 254, dated 22.7.1998 and that there can be no channel of promotion for a person continuing in a supernumerary post. 7. Challenging the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed a fresh application in O.A. No. 570 of 2005. But the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.2008. After 6 years of the dismissal of O.A. No. 570 of 2005 as withdrawn, the petitioner again went before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2903 of 2014, challenging G.O.Ms. No. 254, dated 22.7.1998 and the Memo dated 09.8.2004. But the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.2008. After 6 years of the dismissal of O.A. No. 570 of 2005 as withdrawn, the petitioner again went before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2903 of 2014, challenging G.O.Ms. No. 254, dated 22.7.1998 and the Memo dated 09.8.2004. Though the limitation for challenging the Government Order and the Government Memo had long expired, by the time the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2903 of 2014, the petitioner took umbrage under a recommendation made by the Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles by his proceedings dated 20.6.2011, proposing to the Government that the post of Assistant Textile Designer could be converted to that of Development Officer. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 21.8.2014. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for review in Review M.A. No. 2595 of 2014, but the same was dismissed on 07.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 9. At the outset, it should be pointed out that O.A. No. 2903 of 2014 was hopelessly barred by limitation and was also barred by res-judicata. What was challenged in O.A. No. 2903 of 2014 was the Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 254, dated 22.7.1998 and a Government Memo dated 09-8-2004. The original application challenging the Government Order and the Government Memo was filed in the year 2014, after nearly 16 years of the Government Order and after 10 years of the Government Memo. Therefore, the original application was barred by limitation in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 10. Moreover, the first original application was filed by the petitioner in the year 1996 in O.A. No. 5642 of 1996. The prayer in the said application was for setting aside a Memo dated 13.8.1996 by which the higher post of Textile Designer (not the post of Assistant Textile Designer) was abolished. An alternative prayer was made in O.A. No. 5642 of 1996 for equating the post of Assistant Textile Designer with that of Development Officer. This alternative prayer was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 08.9.2003. However, the Tribunal gave a direction for considering the claim of the petitioner, pursuant to which the Government passed an order dated 09.8.2014 citing the abolition of the very post of the petitioner under G.O.Ms. No. 254. It is only thereafter that the petitioner woke up to challenge G.O.Ms. However, the Tribunal gave a direction for considering the claim of the petitioner, pursuant to which the Government passed an order dated 09.8.2014 citing the abolition of the very post of the petitioner under G.O.Ms. No. 254. It is only thereafter that the petitioner woke up to challenge G.O.Ms. No. 254, dated 22.7.1998, in the next application O.A. No. 570 of 2005. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have gone to the rescue of the petitioner. 11. In any case, even the recommendation made by the Commissioner, dated 20.6.2011, on the basis of which the petitioner went for a third time before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2903 of 2014, had been issued 3 years before the filing of the original application. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the Tribunal did not put limitation against the petitioner, the ultimate result handed over by the Tribunal to the petitioner is perfectly in tune with law. 12. Mr. D. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that even as per the Rules, issued under G.O.Ms No. 17, Industries and Commerce, dated 06.02.1995, further recruitment to the post of Assistant Textile Designer was stopped and that category was indicated to be abolished, as and when the present incumbent vacated the office. Therefore, he contended that G.O.Ms. No. 254, dated 22.7.1998, under which the Government claims to have abolished the post of Assistant Textile Designer, is a farce, as no post was available to be abolished at that time. 13. But the aforesaid contention completely overlooks a nicety of Service Law. It is true that in G.O.Ms. No. 17, Industries and Commerce, dated 06.02.1995, the Government issued the Andhra Pradesh Handlooms and Textiles Subordinate Service Rules. The service was to comprise of 10 categories of posts, the first of which was the Development Officer and Category 1A was to be Assistant Textile Designer. In the table under Rule 3, the method of appointment and the Appointing Authority for the post of Assistant Textile Designer was indicated as follows: 1.A Assistant Textile Designer There will be no further appointment to this post. The category will stand abolished as and when the present incumbent vacates the post. 14. By making the prescription as aforesaid, the Government retained the post of Assistant Textile Designer as a cadre post, until the retirement of the petitioner. The category will stand abolished as and when the present incumbent vacates the post. 14. By making the prescription as aforesaid, the Government retained the post of Assistant Textile Designer as a cadre post, until the retirement of the petitioner. But thereafter, the Government thought fit to abolish the post, without waiting for the retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 254 was passed abolishing the post with immediate effect, but retaining the petitioner in a supernumerary post. Therefore, there is no use contending that the abolition itself was illegal. 15. The right of the Government to create and abolish posts, is well settled. The jurisdiction of the Courts to interfere is extremely circumscribed. It is true that the Supreme Court indicated that the Government servants should have at least one avenue of promotion in their career. But it was only a suggestion and not a mandate of law. Where it is not possible or viable, the Court cannot compel the creation of one avenue of promotion. 16. Hence, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.