The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns order dated 28th May 199 (Annexure 2) by which the seniority of the petitioner in the grade of Handyman was sought to be forfeited. 2. The petitioner joined service as Handyman in the Soil Conservation Wing of the Directorate of Agriculture in 1979 by order dated 28th April, 1979. After serving as Handyman for about four (4) years, the petitioner was sent for tractor training in Madhya Pradesh for a period of three (3) months. That training the petitioner completed successfully. 3. Sometime in 1991 an order was issued promoting the petitioner to the post of Tractor Driver from the post of Handyman. By the said order of promotion the petitioner was transferred to Mokokchung. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that in view of some difficulties with which the petitioner was faced at home, the order of promotion was declined and the petitioner refused to accept the promotion. As such he continued as Handyman and remained at Kohima. 4. The petitioner is particularly aggrieved by para 2 of the impugned order dated 28th May 1991. That portion of the impugned order runs as under: "Consequent upon his refusal to accept the promotion order and opted to remain as Handyman the seniority of Shri Razoukuolie shall stand forfeited and he shall have no right to claim over it." It is contended that there is absolutely no ground to pass the order of forfei­ture as regards the seniority of the petitioner as far as the grade of Handyman is concerned. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of some domestic problems he declined the order of promotion to the next higher post as Tractor Driver. However, it is contended that the refusal to accept promotion cannot affect the seniority in the lower grade which the petitioner had lawfully earned. Annexure 7 is inter se seniority of Handyman of the Department. Among nineteen (19) of them the name of the petitioner is at serial 5. This seniority list is as on 31.3.91. 5. The petitioner also impugns the interview held on 8.5.92 for selecting candidate to fill up the post of Mechanic Grade II. The petitioner was also called for this interview. Among nineteen (19) of them the name of the petitioner is at serial 5. This seniority list is as on 31.3.91. 5. The petitioner also impugns the interview held on 8.5.92 for selecting candidate to fill up the post of Mechanic Grade II. The petitioner was also called for this interview. However, he declined to appear before the said interview on the ground that certain other persons had been called for the interview from outside of the Department. At the time of issuing Rule in this petition by this Court's order dated 20.5.92, it was made clear that any selection/promotion made as a result of the interview held by the Department on 8.5.92 shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the post of Mechanic Grade II is to be filled up by promotion. Obviously there is no service rule as of today. This claim of the petitioner for the post of Mechanic Grade II by promotion is made on the ground that such method is resorted to in State Transport Department. 7. Government has filed affidavit and I have perused it and I have also heard learned Senior Govt. Advocate. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate has drawn my attention to para 5 of the Government affidavit wherein it is stated that the post of Tractor Operator (Driver) is a promotional post from the post of Handyman. It is also stated that post of Mechanic Grade II is again another promotional post from the post of Tractor Operator (Driver). The scale of Handyman shown in this affidavit is Rs. 400-8-440-10-530 etc. whereas the scale of Tractor Operator is Rs. 450-11-538-12-670 etc. and the scale of Mechanic Grade II is Rs. 510-11-565-14-705 etc. Although it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the post of Mechanic Grade II used to be by promotion directly from the post of Handyman, in view of the statement made in this affidavit it appears to me that there are clearly different scales of pay for these categories of service. In this view of the matter it appears to me that the petitioner would not have validly claimed a post of Mechanic Grade II from the post of Handyman. It is stated by learned Senior Govt. In this view of the matter it appears to me that the petitioner would not have validly claimed a post of Mechanic Grade II from the post of Handyman. It is stated by learned Senior Govt. Advocate that in view of the pendency of this case before this Court the results of the interview have not yet been announced and no appointment has been issued so far. On perusal of this Court's order referred to above there was no direction by which such declaration of the suit of appointment was prevented by this Court. It appears that the submission of the learned Senior Govt. Advocate is clearly belied by Annexure B of the Government affidavit. In Annexure B which is an extract of note sheet of the relevant file as stated by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, it is stated ''as directed in the pre page interview was conducted on 8 May, 1992 for one Mechanic Grade II post and Board result is furnished herewith for necessary action" and below that it is also state "qualified candidates are not found by the Board. Hence it is suggested to arrange for fresh candidates again". That note is dated 8.8.92. It is for the Government to see who is fit and who is not fit to fill up a particular post. But in the facts and circumstances of the case as I have narrated above, there cannot be any dispute as regards the selection to be made by the competent authority to fill up one post of Mechanic Grade II. 8. The only, point which I should make it abundantly clear is as regards para 2 of the impugned order quoted above. As stated above although the petitioner declined to accept promotion to the next higher post for personal difficulties, I see no reason why his lawfully earned seniority in the grade of Handyman should be forfeited. Such order of forfeiture is clearly imper­missible. At the same time I would also make it clear that there is nothing that can prevent the Government from considering the case of the petitioner to the next higher post when such occasion arises. The doors for promotion cannot be shut completely and for ever. Such order of forfeiture is clearly imper­missible. At the same time I would also make it clear that there is nothing that can prevent the Government from considering the case of the petitioner to the next higher post when such occasion arises. The doors for promotion cannot be shut completely and for ever. The only difference in such a case is that in view of this refusal to accept the earlier promotion, the benefit of such promotion would be accrued to the petitioner only when such promotion is made in the future. 9. In the light of the facts stated above the petition is allowed. Para 2 of the impugned order dated 28th May, 1991 is quashed. The petitioner's seniority in the grade of Handyman shall stand. In the circumstances of the case I pass no order as to costs. This petition is accordingly disposed of.