K NARAYANI Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. No. 239 of 1996: The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief: . . . certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the order in roc. No. 5901/92c1, dated 4. 3. 1993 and quash the same as illegal and unreasonable and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as per relevant rules from the date of her application seeking promotion. . .'

(2.) . The impugned order of the High Court made on the administrative Side reads as hereunder: 'On a careful consideration of the petition of Tmt. K. Narayani, Copyist, District court. Thanjavur, the remarks of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, and other connected records of the case, the High Court passes the following order: ' In view of the earlier acceptance of the permanent relinquishment and Rule 47 (2)of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the request of tmt. K. Narayani, Copyist, District Court, Thanjavur, cannot be acceded to.' High Court, Madras-600 104 Sd. T. Krishnamoorthy, Dated: 4th March, 1993. Additional Registrar (Judl.)'

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is contended that the respondents ought to have considered in exercise of their discretion that the acceptance of a permanent relinquishment of promotional rights and opportunities would result in great prejudice and that the letter of revocation of her request for permanent relinquishment ought to have been considered. The challenge to the said Statutory Rule is made on the ground that those Rules are violative of Arts. 14 and 16 and by vaguely stating of various other Articles of the Constitution. " Learned counsel, except reiterating the above, was not able to substantiate the constitutional infirmity, if any undermining the validity of the Rule, by any concrete submission.