Mr. J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the rejection of 6threpresentation of the petitioner against his fixation of the seniority inservice. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, leading to the filing of this writ petition areas under:- ( 3 ) THE petitioner joined the Army in Short Service Regular Commission on 13/01/1955. Since he had fulfilled certain criteria ofserving in Civil Hospital etc. before joining Army, he was given six monthsantedate of seniority for that and he was given seniority with effect from 13/07/1956. Such conditions contained in Army Instructions issued inthe year 1962 bearing No. 191/62. In December 1962 the conditions withregard to such officers getting Permanent Commission were issued vide letterof the Government of India dated 21/07/1955 which, infer alia,provided:- (A) All such officers will be allowed two chances for considerationfor PRC. (b) The first chance will be available after the completion of twoyears of SSRC service but before completion of the initialcontractual period of 3 years. (c) Officers, who are not selected for PRC, in first attempt or whohave not availed themselves of the first chance-vide para (b)above, will be allowed a second chance for consideration after5 years of service. It was pointed out that the Commission granted in 1957 was continued upto 5/02/1964 by the authorities giving extensions to the petitioner. The petitioner never took the test during this period. ( 4 ) ON 1/03/1964, the petitioner applied for and was grantedemergency Commission when he relinquished Short Service Regular Commission. Such Emergency Commission was granted in terms of the Armyinstructions dated 15/05/1962. On 1/05/1965 further Armyinstructions bearing No. 152/65 were issued with regard to ante-date ofseniority of Emergency Commissioned Officers getting Permanent Commission. My attention is drawn to para 2 of the said instructions whichreads as under :- 2. Readjustment of antedate seniorityany antedate granted to them while holding an Emergency orreserve Commission will be readjusted under AI 191/62 ifi selectedfor PRC. Officers with previous service in the AMC if selected forprc will also be subjected to one year s cut of seniority as per existing rules and as applicable in the case of SSRC Officers. Officersselected for PRC in the second chance vide Clause (b) above willhave their seniority for pay and promotion reduced by oneyear. ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENT to that the authorities issued another letter dated 22/04/1966 superseding the aforesaid provision. Officersselected for PRC in the second chance vide Clause (b) above willhave their seniority for pay and promotion reduced by oneyear. ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENT to that the authorities issued another letter dated 22/04/1966 superseding the aforesaid provision. The said letter,inter alia, provided that non-regular officers were to be given, in future,two chances for taking the departmental examination for Permanent Commission. They could take such examinations at any time aftercompletionof two years service and before completion of five years service. This veryletter further provided a Rule with regard to the adjustment of seniority incertain cases which reads as under :- I am, however, to add that seniority of an AMC officer grantedpermanent Commission hereafter in his "second Chance" or underan "ad Hoc Scheme" will be adjusted in such a way that he doesnot become senior, for the purpose of pay and promotion, to anofficer with equivalent or longer reckonable commissioned service,who has been subjected to a cut in seniority at the time of grantof Permanent Commission under the old orders. ( 6 ) THE petitioner who appeared for the examination only aftergetting Emergency Commission and had not appeared for examinationwhile he was enjoying the Short Service Regular Commission cleared theexamination and was selected for Permanent Commission on 30/04/1966. He was informed of his selection as well as his fixation of hisantedate of seniority in accordance with the aforesaid Instructions andinstructions bearing No. A1 191 of 1962. The petitioner duly gave hisconsent to such fixation of seniority. The certificate given by the petitionerreads as under :-CERTIFICATE I No M 30591 Major S. K. Moulik. here declare that the provi-sion of Ministry of Defence, office of the DG AFMS letter No18855/dgafms/dc-IA dated 8 August 66 has been fully unde^stood by me and that lam willing to accept a PC in the AMCunder the terms and conditions stipulated therein. ( 7 ) FOLLOWING such acceptance by the petitioner Gazette Notificationfixing seniority of the petitioner with effect from 2/06/1957 was issued. The petitioner notwithstanding his unconditional certificate of acceptancemade repeated representations against such fixation of seniority but hisrepresentations were rejected. The 5th representation was rejected in May1972. ( 7 ) FOLLOWING such acceptance by the petitioner Gazette Notificationfixing seniority of the petitioner with effect from 2/06/1957 was issued. The petitioner notwithstanding his unconditional certificate of acceptancemade repeated representations against such fixation of seniority but hisrepresentations were rejected. The 5th representation was rejected in May1972. On 3/01/1991 the petitioner made yet another representationstaling that since the persons who were placed senior to him by virtue of theaforesaid rule regarding antedate seniority had all retired and that therewas no one left in service who was granted that seniority above thepetitioner, his original seniority should be restored and he should be placedabove Maj. Gen. R. S. Bhola, Maj. Gen. P. K. Chakraborty, AVM R. K. Dutta and Surg RADM B. K. Rakshit. I have not been shown any authorityor rule or provision whereunder the antedate of seniority fixed on theretirement of the persons who were placed above the petitioner under theaforesaid rule. ( 8 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that all those persons who had lost one year seniority on getting Permanent Commission were placedabove the petitioner while adjusting the seniority because when petitioner ap-peared for the examination for Permanent Commission the Rule had under-gone a change and he did not suffer such loss of seniority exept to the extentset out in the instructions contained hereinabove. The Counsel for thepetitioner has tried to make a lot out of the use of the expression "senioritywas adjusted". He contends that the expression "seniority was fixed" hadnot been used and the term "adjusted" was used only to indicate the casethat the petitioner was to suffer in the fixation of his seniority so long asthose persons referred to above continued to be in service and once all suchlo persons bad retired the petitioner should have been granted the seniorityas he was originally entitled to. ( 9 ) THE contentions of the petitioner have been opposed by thelearned Counsel for the respondent on various grounds including thefollowing:- "the delay in approaching the Court for redressal of his grievances. " ( 10 ) IT is pointed out that the petitioner made several representationsand the 5th representation was made in the year 1970 which was also rejectedand thereafter be neither challenged nor protested against any such ordersregarding adjustment of seniority. On 3/01/1991 the petitioner hadsent 6th representation. " ( 10 ) IT is pointed out that the petitioner made several representationsand the 5th representation was made in the year 1970 which was also rejectedand thereafter be neither challenged nor protested against any such ordersregarding adjustment of seniority. On 3/01/1991 the petitioner hadsent 6th representation. I have already observed that no rule or authorityhas been shown to me in support of such a contention. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has rebutted this argument of delay and has reliedupon Joginder Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 511 . According tocounsel for the petitioner the main grievance arose only on the retirementof the last person on account of whom petitioner s seniority had to beadjusted in denying him the full antedate of seniority. In view of myobservations hereinabove I am unable to accept this contention. I find thatthe petitioner has no case because petitioner had accepted the adjustment ofseniority in terms of the Rules and the conditions by signing that certificateand after rejection of his 5th representation having accepted that positionright uptol991 he cannot now take that hypertechnical plea that "adjustment" does not amount to "fixation" of seniority and that the seniorityshould be deemed to have been adjusted only so long as persons who weregiven seniority above the petitioner were in service. I am unable to acceptthis in the absence of any such stipulation, in the conditions subject wheretothe petitioner s seniority was adjusted and which adjustment was acceptedby the petitioner will full awareness of the implication of signing suchacceptance certificate. In my opinion, the term "adjustment" did not conveyany meaning that the seniority fixed/adjusted could be disturbed on anyparticular contingency happening since no such stipulation was provided inthe instructions whereunder the petitioner s seniority was fixed and acceptedby him of his own free will. The contention that such seniority can comefor a review or readjustment on the retirement of certain individuals cannotbe accepted. As the petitioner s plea had earlier been considered andrejected repeatedly and he never challenged any such order before anyi Court. The authorities while rejecting his pleas/representations did notprovide for any reconsideration or readjustment or refixation of the seniorityof the petitioner on the happening of any event as has been urged beforeme by the petitioner today. ( 12 ) I find no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. Inthe circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.