JUDGMENT (Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of 3rd respondent dated 04.04.2017 in Na.Ka.No.13407/2014/Ni.2 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to forthwith promote the petitioner as the Block Development Officer with effect from the date of the promotion of the juniors to the petitioner.) (1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records of the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, Salem, in proceedings Na.Ka.No.8029/2016/Ni.1 dated 04.04.2017 and the further order dated 21.05.2014 also by the said 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.13407/2014/Ni.2 and quash both the said proceedings. (2) The petitioner had joined as a Typist in the Rural Development Department at Trichy District on 11.11.1988. She was then transferred from Trichy District to Salem District. She was then promoted as Assistant on 07.11.1997 and as Extension Officer [Small Savings] on 20.06.2006. The said post was then upgraded and the petitioner was posted as Deputy Block Development Officer [Small Savings]. She has been working at Ayodhyapattinam Panchayat Union. She had also worked as Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer at Tharamangalam Panchayat Union in Salem District. The seniority of the petitioner as Deputy Block Development Officer was determined at Serial No.134 on 11.03.2009. Thereafter, there was an opportunity for the Deputy Block Development Officers to be further promoted as Block Development Officers. For reasons which she claimed based on medical condition, she submitted a request on 18.09.2013, requesting the 3rd respondent/District Collector, Salem, to defer her promotion from Deputy Block Development Officer [Panchayat] to Block Development Officer. (3) The petitioner claims that such relinquishment was temporary in nature. However, it is her grievance that the respondents had construed her relinquishment as permanent in nature and did not consider her for promotion when the opportunity actually came up when the panel for promotion was drawn in the year 2018. The petitioner had raised a grievance on that particular aspect and the impugned order came to be passed holding that she had herself voluntarily relinquished the promotional opportunity on a permanent basis. She had sent a further representation protesting the said decision. But, again the same stand was taken by the respondents. The petitioner had raised a grievance on that particular aspect and the impugned order came to be passed holding that she had herself voluntarily relinquished the promotional opportunity on a permanent basis. She had sent a further representation protesting the said decision. But, again the same stand was taken by the respondents. (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Rule 47[2] of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, which relates to voluntary relinquishment of promotional opportunities by a Government servant. Learned counsel insisted that relinquishment given by the petitioner on 18.09.2013 was only temporary in nature and had been wrongly misconstrued by the respondents as is one of permanent relinquishment. (5) Learned Additional Government Pleader, however pointed out that the petitioner herself had voluntarily written the letter and it is contended that she was not interested in being promoted as Block Development Officer citing health reasons. It was therefore, contended that the petitioner has no inherent right to seek promotion particularly after giving a letter without any undue influence or any other extraneous influence being imposed on her. It is therefore, contended that the 3rd respondent was correct in applying the second part of Rule 47[2] of the aforementioned Rules and holding that the relinquishment given by the petitioner was permanent in nature and refusing to consider her for promotion. (6) The entire issue surrounds on the interpretation of Rule 47[2] of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service [D&A] Rules. The said provision is as follows:- ''''47:-Relinquishment of Rights by members:- (1)..... (2) Relinquishment of a right or privilege for a temporary period shall be accepted if it is made for a period of not less than three years, subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period, the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exist on the date of expiry of the period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. If relinquishment of right or privilege is made permanently and is accepted, subsequent claim of the relinquished rights or privileges shall not be entertained .'''' (7) Every Government servant has a right to express his/her intention not to seek promotion and to be retained in the same post. If relinquishment of right or privilege is made permanently and is accepted, subsequent claim of the relinquished rights or privileges shall not be entertained .'''' (7) Every Government servant has a right to express his/her intention not to seek promotion and to be retained in the same post. If that right is exercised, a right also correspondingly vests with the authority who is entrusted with the responsibility to promote or prepare the promotion panel, to leave out that particular Government servant from consideration when the panel is drawn for promotion. The only issue is that such relinquishment should not be opposed to public policy or public interest. There are conditions when relinquishment is made by a public servant and such relinquishment could be either temporary in nature or permanent in nature. (8) The aforementioned Rule deals with both the situations. If it is for temporary, then an upper limit of three years is fixed. If it is for permanent, then permanently, right through the service of that particular Government servant, he/she would not be considered for promotion. (9) The letter given by the petitioner herein seeking relinquishment of promotion dated 18.09.2013 had been filed as a document along with the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that the petitioner had stated that (10) These wordings are interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as a relinquishment of temporary in nature. But as seen from the counter affidavit filed and as stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it could also be interpreted as being a permanent relinquishment since the petitioner has given two reasons, namely, about her health and about her family circumstances. If this is to be withdrawn even it if was temporary, she would have to give a further certificate about her health becoming alright and her family circumstance becoming conducive so that she can take more responsibility of Block Development Officer. There are no such document except the consistent protest by the petitioner that this relinquishment is only temporary in nature. (11) The 3rd respondent in his impugned order dated 21.05.2014, had however interpreted this particular letter as (Permanent Relinquishment). (12) He had taken a view that this was a permanent relinquishment. There are no such document except the consistent protest by the petitioner that this relinquishment is only temporary in nature. (11) The 3rd respondent in his impugned order dated 21.05.2014, had however interpreted this particular letter as (Permanent Relinquishment). (12) He had taken a view that this was a permanent relinquishment. It must also be kept in mind that when a Government servant gives such a letter and thereafter, seeks promotion, it would affect the seniority of all the others who had been promoted earlier. The Rule, therefore protects such eventuality by denying placement of seniority in the original list. On receipt of that particular order, the petitioner had raised a protest. In the panel which was drawn in the year 2018 for promotion, the petitioner''s name was also subsequently included with a rider by mentioning it as permanent relinquishment. (13) Having examined the records, I am of the opinion that the relinquishment given by the petitioner was only temporary in nature. She had used the word which would obviously mean that at that particular point of time in the year 2013, when the petitioner wrote the letter, her health condition and family situation was not conducive with her to take up higher responsibilities. It could not be held permanently against her. It could only be held against her only for a period of three years. It could also be held against her by stating that she would not be entitled to any seniority even if her juniors are promoted either along with her or earlier to her. (14) In view of that particular caveat placed, I would give a direction to the respondents to include the petitioner in the panel for promotion whenever it had opened up after the period of three years from the date of that particular letter of the petitioner herein to ensure that the seniority of those who had actually been promoted are not affected and that the petitioner is placed at the juniormost of that particular panel. (15) With that particular observation, the request of the petitioner is acceded by this Court. (16) The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 04.04.2017 is hereby set aside. The respondents may examine the letter given by the petitioner as a temporary relinquishment and pass necessary proceedings. (15) With that particular observation, the request of the petitioner is acceded by this Court. (16) The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 04.04.2017 is hereby set aside. The respondents may examine the letter given by the petitioner as a temporary relinquishment and pass necessary proceedings. Necessary proceedings may be passed within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.