cannot be left to an employee to decide when he will accept the promotion. A refusal by a person to accept the promotion post cannot force the management to keep the post vacant indefinitely. A re-adjustment will have to be made by getting another person suitable although he may be lower in the rung, when the promotion is refused by a person to whom it is offered. A clause, therefore, providing that the consideration for promotion will not be undertaken, for a particular length of time has a basis in allowing the management to make suitable adjustments and organise its own cadre to carry on with the work at the promotional level. A challenge in this rule is also the basis for prayer in the writ petition that he should be promoted from the day when the juniors were promoted. In this case, a junior had been promoted, which was on account of the fact that the petitioner refused to accept the promotion that was offered to him. When in his own turn again he was considered for promotion and when he had been promoted by invoking the very same clause 9(e), he accepted the promotion and then he has challenged the promotion policy. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. He cannot challenge a provision through which he has ultimately gained even the promotion post. It should again be noticed that the writ petition itself has been filed only far later than when the promotion was originally offered and later withdrawn on his declining the promotion post and to report at Bihar zone where he was posted. The respondent has also filed a written statement referring to the fact that an officer of the Bank is liable to be posted in any part of India and that is one of the terms of the employment. His unwillingness to report at the place where he was
