S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application is questioning the impugned order dated 26. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder his original application filed for refixation of his seniority has been dismissed. ( 2 ) IN sum and substance, the petitioner questioned the seniority list prepared in the year 1977. On the petitioner s own showing, since 1983, he had been filing representations. It appears that some consolidated representation was filed only in the year 2000 which evoked some response from the officers who, we do not know whether they have any final say in the matter. Taking advantage of certain letters issued by some officers from Survey training Institute, the original application as filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned tribunal has wrongly dismissed the O. A. on the ground of delay and laches alone despite the well-settled legal position that delay and laches would not come in the way of deciding a matter on merits. The learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the impugned order could not have been passed against the petitioner who approached the learned Tribunal seeking redressal of violations of his fundamental rights. ( 4 ) THE jurisdiction of a Tribunal or a court cannot be invoked by a person who sleeps over his right. The very fact that the petitioner started agitating his so-called grievance only from 1983 and did not take any steps before by approaching the Court or a Tribunal within a reasonable time is itself a ground to show that he had slept over his rights. In S. S. Rathore v. State of m. P. , AIR 1990 SC 10 at 17, the Apex court, in similar circumstances, held at para 22:"it is proper that the position in such cases should be uniform. Therefore, in every such case until the appeal or representation provided by a law is disposed of, accrual of cause of action for cause of action shall first arise only when the higher authority makes its order on appeal or representation and where such order is not made on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made. Submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation. " ( 5 ) FURTHERMORE, the seniority which has been fixed in the year 1977 cannot be permitted to be reopened after a long time. We may in this situation, refer to a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in N. Kotam Raju v. Regional deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada, 2001 (3) ALD 649 , wherein it has been held at para 11:"the rules on the basis whereof the impugned order had been passed came into force in 1996 and only thereafter the representation had been filed for the first time in the year 1997. Keeping in view the aforementioned factors into consideration, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the question of inter se seniority must be governed by the rules as were existing at the relevant point of time. By reason of a subsequent amendment in rule and/or insertion of new rule whereby new rights and obligations are created, the unofficial respondents cannot be said to have derived any right to get the matter reopened after a long lapse of time particularly when, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner herein had not only been promoted to the post of Junior assistant but also to the post of Senior assistant as far back as 1992. So far as the post of Senior Assistant is concerned, the inter se seniority has been fixed and thus the same cannot be reopened inter alia on the ground that the petitioner herein did not have the requisite qualification for being promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistants. If the same is directed to be done at this stage, it would amount to revocation of the order of promotion. " ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.