ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned speaking order, vide Rc.No.264/C2/2022, dated 10.03.2022 of the 1st respondent, in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, without considering Rule 28 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’) and G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 15.06.2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is working as Junior Assistant, Government General Hospital, Kadapa, YSR District. Initially, he was appointed as Record Assistant in the year 2009, later got promoted as Junior Assistant on 14.12.2016. Thereafter, he had been promoted to the category of Senior Assistant on 16.10.2019 and posted to Primary Health Centre, Roddam, Ananthapuram District. In view of the health conditions of the mother of the petitioner, he submitted a representation on 22.02.2020 requesting the 1st respondent to revert him to the post of Junior Assistant. Consequently, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant, vide orders in Rc.No.355/C2/2020, dated 10.03.2020. Thereafter, based on the family conditions and medical health of the mother of the petitioner, he made a representation, dated 13.11.2020 to the 1st respondent to consider his request for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. (ii) While his representation is pending, the Seniority list was prepared to effect promotions to the post of Senior Assistants for the panel year 2020-2021, wherein, the petitioner’s name was placed at Sl.No.93. Accordingly, seniority list was finalized, but in the relevant ‘remarks column’ it was mentioned as “promoted and reverted as Junior Assistant”. The petitioner was in fact under the hope that his case would be considered for promotion, but the same was not done on the ground that previously he relinquished his promotion and taken reversion to the post of Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the health condition of the mother of the petitioner, petitioner requested the 1st respondent to revert him to the post of Junior Assistant. Subsequently, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant, vide orders in Rc.No.355/C2/2020, dated 10.03.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the health condition of the mother of the petitioner, petitioner requested the 1st respondent to revert him to the post of Junior Assistant. Subsequently, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant, vide orders in Rc.No.355/C2/2020, dated 10.03.2020. As per the request made by the petitioner only, reversion is made by the 1st respondent. He further states that the Rule 11 (b) as well as the Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996 are only applicable to those members, who cannot join in the promotional post within a stipulated joining time of ‘15’ days and once relinquishment is not opposed by the appointing authority, such relinquishment will be final and irrevocable, hence, those provisions could not be applicable in this case. He further submits that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the composite High Court in W.P.No.13624 of 2015, considered the issue on the ground that Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996 does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion permanently. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-IV, while reiterating the averments in the counter filed by the 1st respondent No.1 contended that as per the declaration given by the petitioner, he was reverted to Junior Assistant, accepting the conditions laid down in the reversion orders, dated 10.03.2020 and joined as Junior Assistant and now, he cannot claim for promotion without challenging the said conditions laid down in the said reversion orders. He further submits that the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa, obtained an undertaking from the petitioner at the time of reverting him as Junior Assistant that he would not claim any further promotion in future as per law under Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996 and in view of the said undertaking, he is not entitled for promotion in future and prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Perused the entire material on record. On perusal, it is evident that based on Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996, the respondents have rejected the request made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. 6. Perused the entire material on record. On perusal, it is evident that based on Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996, the respondents have rejected the request made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Rule-28 of the Rules of 1996, reads as follows : “In terms of Rule-28 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules,1996, any member of a service may, in writing, relinquish any right or privilege to which he may 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 irrecoverable”. 7. Based on the above said Rule-28, the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Assistant. With regard to Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996, learned counsel relies 69on the order, dated 02.06.2017 of the Division Bench of composite High Court in M.V.R.L.S., Ravikanth V. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.13624 of 2015. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder : “6. In Writ Petition No. 26654 of 2005 (The District Educational Officer, Kurnool & Ors Vs. Shahnaz Begum) a Division Bench of this Court through its order dated 09.08.2006, having considered the Rule 28 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 held that a careful perusal of Rule 28 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules would reveal that 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 and such relinquishment is subject to acceptance of the appointing authority having satisfied that such relinquishment was not opposed to public interest and such replenishment once made will be final and irrevocable. It means 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 test etc., as required under the then existing rules and in respect of a vacancy that has arisen at the relevant time has been relinquished. It further follows that the extent of relinquishment has to be confined in the context of that particular occasion when the right or privilege of promotion had arisen for a member of a service. It further follows that the extent of relinquishment has to be confined in the context of that particular occasion when the right or privilege of promotion had arisen for a member of a service. The rule cannot be interpreted to mean that relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. Ultimately it was held that relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would amount to permanent relinquishment of right or privilege of 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 promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning. Thus Rule 28 does not prohibit consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion forever, for a right to be considered for promotion, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as was held in Ajit Singh II Vs. State of Punjab { 1999(7) SCC 209 } and, Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh { 2000(7) SCC 210 }. It is also well settled that fundamental rights cannot be waived. When the petitioner did not specifically waive his right to be considered for promotion, no such waiver can be said to have been made by necessary implication either. Rule 28 does not disentitle a member of a service from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right under the rules for promotion earlier. 7. Following the aforesaid decision, in the case of G. Boyanna Vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of AP and another { 2009(2) ALD 402 (DB)}, a Division Bench of this Court held that merely reversion sought earlier on personal grounds did not disentitle the employee from being considered for promotion thereafter and that Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the employee to be considered for promotion permanently. That being the legal position, the rejection of the employee's request to be considered for promotion on the ground of his/her alleged relinquishment is unsustainable. 11. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. That being the legal position, the rejection of the employee's request to be considered for promotion on the ground of his/her alleged relinquishment is unsustainable. 11. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 did not disentitle a member of a service from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right for promotion earlier. In the case on hand, the mere fact is that the petitioner's relinquishment for promotion on account of suffering from depression due to sustaining physical disability, loss of wife and son in the accident did not disentitle him from being considered for promotion in future vacancies. 13. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would amount to permanent relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to that particular vacancy. Rule 28 of the A.P. 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 interpretation would lead to frustration and unrest in the service defeating the object of promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning.” 8. On perusal of the above said order, it is evident that the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India and the same was declared by the Apex Court in Ajit Singh II Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (7) SCC 209, wherein, it is held that “relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would amount to permanent relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 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 promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning”. 9. The Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 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 promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning”. 9. Relying on the above observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the instant case, the petitioner relinquished his right for promotion only one time on the medical ground of his mother and after she is getting normal, the petitioner has made an application for promotion as Senior Assistant, as such, he is eligible and entitled for future promotions for the panel year 2020-2021. 10. Considering the material available on record and on perusal of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench, it is clear that the relinquishment under Rule-28 of the Rules should be treated as relinquishment for one time and it cannot be treated as permanent, which does not disentitle the petitioner from being considered for promotion in future vacancies. Moreover, Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion permanently. 11. Therefore, in view of the above legal position, it can be said that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by sustaining his previous relinquishment. Taking into consideration of all the aspects and observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned speaking orders, dated 10.03.2022, in Rc.No.264/C2/2022 passed by the 1st respondent, thereby, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the existing vacancy as per Rules, if he is otherwise qualified and eligible for the said post. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.