Judgment Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Nikhil S. Kariel, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil C. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Upper Division Clerk in the Officer of the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai (Western Zone). He had earlier filed Original Application No. 115 of 1989 challenging his regularilisation as Lower Division Clerk as recommended by Staff Selection Commission and not from the date of his appointment. The O.A. No. 115 of 1989 was disposed of on 5.8.1994 directing the petitioner to make representation for consideration of his seniority from the date of his initial appointment on 18.8.1980 and for consequential benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis as Upper Division Clerk by order dated 5.5.1995 and he was transferred to Mumbai. He refused the transfer order dated 5.5.1995, and as he was not interested in promotion made on 5.5.1995, the respondents debarred him for promotion for one year i.e. upto 4.5.1996. The petitioner was again promoted on 17.4.1996 on ad hoc basis and he was transferred to Baroda. He again declined this promotion also. He was subsequently promoted. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in O.A. No. 234 of 2003, which has been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 17.3.2004 has urged that refusal of his promotion cannot effect the seniority granted to him in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that once the petitioner forgos his promotion and his juniors are promoted on higher post, then the petitioner would definitely lose his seniority and persons who are promoted earlier to him would become senior to him. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. This writ petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.