THIRUNARAYANAN N Vs. DIRECTOR OF DAIRY RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an upper division clerk in the National Dairy Research Institute in the Southern Station at Bangalore. On 15 May, 1963, he was offered the higher post of an accountant in the National Dairy Research Institute in Karnal in the State of Punjab. The petitioner declined that offer and when, on 31 January, 1964, he was offered a promotion to the post of a head clerk in the Eastern Regional Station in Calcutta, he again declined it. So, on 27 February, 1964, the concerned Director made an order that the offers of promotion to which the consent of the petitioner was erroneously sought, should be treated as withdrawn and that the petitioner's case should not be considered for promotion to any higher post for a period of two years from 16 May, 1963.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner asks us to quash the order made in that way. He also asks us to issue a mandamus for the appointment of the petitioner as a head clerk with retrospective effect from 14 May, 1957, when respondent 2 was appointed as a head clerk, or, in any event, as an accountant from 3 September, 1960, when respondent 3 was appointed as such, or, in the alternative, as a head clerk from 13 October, 1962, when respondent 3 was appointed as a head clerk, and again in the alternative as a head clerk from either 1 September, 1962, when respondent 5 was appointed or from 21 September, 1962, when respondent 4 was appointed to that post. He again asks us to quash the appointment of respondent 5 as head clerk on the ground that that appointment is not sanctioned by the cadre and recruitment rules. It is abundantly clear that the petitioner was not right in refusing to accept the promotional post which was offered to him on 15 May, 1963 and on 31 January, 1964. It has been mentioned to us that the petitioner stated then that he could not also accept the promotional posts in distant places like the Punjab State and the West Bengal State so soon after he was transferred to Bangalore.

(3.) That those places were distant places or that the petitioner had been just then transferred to Bangalore, was no ground for his refusal of the promotional post or for insistence on his being offered a higher post in any particular area. But the refusal of promotion, if he was allowed the option to refuse it, cannot justify proscription for future promotion, however short its period, since in that situation the element of insubordination or disobedience is excluded by the option.