JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.02.2006, Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, whereby seniority of the petitioner in North Zone, was fixed, as well as seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in North Zone of Food Corporation of India in A.Z. III Cadre with effect from 16.05.1983. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the petitioner joined in the office of the respondents as Assistant Grade-II (Depot) on 16.05.1983 in district office, Gwalior i.e. West Zone. Respondent No.1 issued a circular dated 20.10.1987 inviting options from the employees of East, West & South Zones on tenure based transfer to North Zone for a period of 3 years to fill up entry level vacancies against direct recruitment quota. Petitioner applied to be transferred to the North Zone for a period of 3 years on tenure transfer as per circular dated 20.10.1987. Request of the petitioner was acceded to vide transfer order dated 09.07.1988 transferring him to the North Zone on tenure based transfer for a period of 3 years. Petitioner gave his joining pursuant to the transfer order dated 09.07.1988 on 20.09.1988. Before the expiry of tenure of 3 years, petitioner applied on 10.06.1991 to absorb the petitioner in the North Zone. It has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner in his request letter dated 10.06.1991, Annexure CA-1, that the petitioner is ready and willing to forgo his seniority in the West Zone, where the petitioner was given initial appointment. Vide letter dated 17/22.02.1993, request of the petitioner to absorb him in the North Zone was acceded to with the condition that no lien will be maintained in the West Zone and his seniority will be fixed in the North Zone from the date of his joining in the North Zone on permanent basis. Seniority of the petitioner was fixed in the North Zone on 19.09.2006 at Sl. No. 1594-A. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs as stated hereinbefore. 3. I have heard Mr. I. P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully perused the record. 4. Facts of the case are undisputed, as narrated hereinbefore. 5. No. 1594-A. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs as stated hereinbefore. 3. I have heard Mr. I. P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully perused the record. 4. Facts of the case are undisputed, as narrated hereinbefore. 5. Undisputedly, initially the petitioner was permitted to be transferred from the West Zone to the North Zone for a tenure of 3 years, vide order dated 09.07.1988, and the petitioner gave his joining in the North Zone on 20.09.1988. Undisputedly, tenure of the petitioner in the North Zone was to be expired on 19.09.1991. Before expiry of the period of tenure transfer, petitioner applied for absorption in the North Zone, vide his request letter dated 10.06.1991, with the stipulation that the petitioner is ready to forgo his seniority in the West Zone. Undisputedly, vide order dated 17/22.02.1993, petitioner was permanently absorbed in the North Zone with the condition that his seniority shall be fixed in the North Zone from the date of his joining in the North Zone on permanent basis. The net result would be that the petitioner has given joining in the North Zone on permanent basis after the order dated 17/22.02.1993, CA-4, and the petitioner’s seniority was fixed thereafter vide letter dated 19.09.2006 with effect from 17/22.02.1993, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was permitted to be permanently absorbed in the North Zone. Meaning thereby, petitioner was given seniority from the date when he was allowed to give joining on permanent basis in the North Zone. 6. Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was not relieved immediately after 19.09.1991 after completion of the tenure transfer and was allowed to work till 1993, therefore, petitioner’s seniority should be counted with effect from 20.09.1991 i.e. just after completion of the period of tenure transfer. 7. I am unable to accept the arguments so advanced by Mr. 7. I am unable to accept the arguments so advanced by Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, simply for the reason that order dated 17/22.02.1993, CA-4, clearly stipulates that the petitioner was allowed to be absorbed in the North Zone and his seniority would be counted in the North Zone from the date of his joining in the North Zone on permanent basis, and admittedly the petitioner gave his joining in the North Zone on permanent basis only after the order of 17/22.02.1993 and his seniority is fixed with effect from 17/22.02.1993, therefore, merely because the petitioner was allowed to work before being permanently absorbed in the North Zone does not give right to the petitioner to claim seniority in the North Zone with effect from 20.02.1991. 8. There is another aspect of the matter i.e. the petitioner has not challenged Condition No. 4 of the absorption order Dated 17/22.02.1993, therefore, seniority of the petitioner was rightly fixed. 9. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.