IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1035 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/03/2006 in WP NO : 28419 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Gulbinder Singh Multani ... APPELLANT AND 1 The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi and three others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 28-03-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 28419 of 1997, this appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 2. The appellant had made a grievance with regard to non- promotion to the post of Master Chief Engine Room Artificer-II (MCERA-II) in the petition. His case was that he ought to have been promoted to the said post, especially, in view of the fact that he was found suitable for the promotional post. 3. The petition filed by the appellant – petitioner has been rejected for the reason that he had informed the respondent authorities under a letter dated 03-08-1993 that he was not willing to continue in Naval service. In the circumstances, though he was found suitable, but because of the unwillingness expressed by him by letter dated 03-08- 1993, his name was not included in the final select list. 4. For the aforestated reasons, the learned single Judge rejected the petition in view of the provisions of Naval Order 123/83, which provides that a person who has shown his unwillingness to continue in service should not be given promotion to the higher post. 5. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. The submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant that the aforestated naval order was later on modified in view of Naval order 40/94 is not acceptable to us for the reason that the appellant – petitioner had already expressed his unwillingness in August 1993 and the selection process was also over in September 1993. In the circumstances, Naval Order 40/94 which was not in existence at the time of the selection process would not be of any help to the appellant – petitioner. 6. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is accordinlgy dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th August, 2009 ks