JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 312/90 passed on 11.11.1997 and has been filed by the three f appellants namely Ramavtar Tinkar, who had been impleaded as party/respondents in the civil writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, now respondent No.2 Shri Ghasi Lal Bairwa; other two appellants Sarva Shri Sohan Lai and Bhagwan Sahai Singhal-appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were neither party to the writ petition, either as intervenor or the respondent, nor they have sought any permission from this court to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge by making a special application. It is settled law that the appeal can be filed by the affected persons if they are party in the writ petition and also by special leave/permission by the persons who are otherwise effected. No such application has been moved by the so called respondent (sic appellant ?) Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, present special appeal shall only be considered to have been properly filed by Ramavtar, appellant No.1 only. 2. The writ petitioner-respondent No.2 had filed the writ petition challenging the impugned orders. He was appointed as LDC on temporary basis and was confirmed on the post of LDC on 28.7.1971. He was promoted to the post of UDC on 31.3.1975 and further promoted as Assistant by having been duly selected. Initially, the respondent No. 2 was appointed under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Staff Rules, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules of 1956). Later on the State Government had issued an amendment wherein it was provided that the persons who were recruited temporarily before 1.9.1968 as LDC were to be made permanent subject to the dear vacancies being available and their work being found satisfactory. 3. The confirmation order of the respondent No.2 dated 28.7.1971 as L.D.C. has been attached to the writ petition wherein his name has been shown at Sr. No.3. The confirmation order for the post of the Assistants has been attached as Annexure A-1 dated 29.10.1987 to the writ petition where the name of the writ petitioner appeared at Sr. No.8. He was confirmed as such on 25.10.1983. Seniority list of Assistants was also published vide Annexure A-2 on 20.8.1988. The name of the writ petitioner was shown at Sr. No.102 in the seniority list of the confirmed Assistants. 4. No.8. He was confirmed as such on 25.10.1983. Seniority list of Assistants was also published vide Annexure A-2 on 20.8.1988. The name of the writ petitioner was shown at Sr. No.102 in the seniority list of the confirmed Assistants. 4. One Shameen Ahmed had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 320/72 challenging the seniority of about 144 persons in the cadre of LDC. The petitioner was not impleaded as party in the above-said writ petition and may be rightly so for the reason that Shameem Ahmed was claiming his date of temporary appointment from 1965 whereas the respondent No.2 had been appointed in the year 1963. Shameem Ahmed was confirmed in June 1968 whereas the respondent No.2 was confirmed in July 1971 and thus said Shameem Ahmed had no grievance against respondent No.2. Shameem Ahmed's case was decided by this court and ultimately finalised by the Apex Court. Even though the writ petition of Shameem Ahmed was dismissed, but he was successful in D.B. Special Appeal No. 444/1974 decided on 5.5.1980 whereby his appeal was partly accepted and confirmation order of LDCs of the respondent Nos. 3 to 145 in the case of Shameem Ahmed's case was affected. The High Court had directed to reframe the interse seniority of Shameem Ahmed and other 144 persons in the cadre of LDC. The petitioner was neither party nor he was amongst respondent Nos. 3 to 145 in the writ petition filed by Shan-dm Ahmed (supra). 5. The State of Rajasthan without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner-respondent No.2 and because of judgment passed in Shameem Ahmed's case in D.B. Special Appeal No. 444/74 decided on 5.5.1980 had affected the seniority of the petitioner vide order dated 29.9.1989 by placing him at Sr. No. 276 of the confirmed L.D.Cs. and consequently his promotion and seniority on the post of UDC and Assistant were also affected. The writ petitioner-respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 9.8.1989 in Civil Writ Petition No. 312/90 out of which present special appeal has arisen. 6. No. 276 of the confirmed L.D.Cs. and consequently his promotion and seniority on the post of UDC and Assistant were also affected. The writ petitioner-respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 9.8.1989 in Civil Writ Petition No. 312/90 out of which present special appeal has arisen. 6. The result of Annexure-B was to bring down the petitioner from seniority No.3 to 276 of LDCs and yet vide another order dated 29.9.1989 (Annexure-C) the seniority of UDCs and Assistants were also affected of respondent No.2 and again by subsequent order dated 8.11.1989 changed the order of the date of confirmation of the petitioner as LDC, copy of which is attached as Annexure-D. The confirmation of the petitioner in regard to Assistants was also affected vide order dated 24.10.1989, copy of which is attached as Annexures-F and G. 7. The respondent No.2 had challenged the orders dated 29.9.1989, order dated 3.10.1989, 24.10.1989, 26.10.1989, 8.11.1989 and 22.12.1989 (Annexures-B to H) for being violative of principles of natural justice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and further submits that Shameem Ahmed's case has no bearing on the rights of the petitioner. 8. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order challenged in SAW had upheld the contention of the petitioner inter alia by holding; 1 that the writ petitioner-respondent No.2's right could not have been affected without affording any opportunity to him; 2 the respondent No.2 was never made a party in Shameem Ahmed's case and thus there could not be any order of change in the respondent No.2's seniority or fixing of seniority either of the cadre of LDC or UDC or Assistants; 3 that the respondent Nos.2's seniority and reversion had been ordered contrary to the decision of this court in D.S. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1/1980 titled Satya Narain Pareek and others Vs. Suresh Kumar Mathur and others decided on 7.3.1980 , wherein the confirmation of the writ petitioner-respondent No.2 and his seniority position was directed to be maintained; 4 that the Division Bench in Shameem Ahmed's case had only quashed the confirmation order of LDC of respondent No.3 to 145 only and not that of the respondent No.2 writ petitioner and, therefore, the rights of respondent No.2 could not have been affected to; 5 it was further observed that two special appeals were filed against the judgment of Syed Shameem Ahmed's case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately had passed an order in Appeal No.12/83 with the direction that the appellants were to be considered for further promotion on the basis of their seniority and status in the existing post which they are holding without taking into effect the factum of their de-confirmation by the impugned order. However, while quashing the impugned order Annexures B, C, D, E, F, G and H relating to respondent No.2-writ petitioner, a further direction had been given by the learned Single Judge for issuing a revised seniority list of respondent No.2 qua similarly situated candidates in the cadre of LDC/UDC/Assistants in the Rajasthan Secretariat Services within a period of six weeks. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the promotion, confirmation and seniority of respondent No.2 passed by various orders in the years 1982, 1987 and 1988 as mentioned in concluding para of the judgment. 9. The appellant in the present case is aggrieved against the said judgment and submits that in view of the written statement filed by the respondents in the writ petition it was a judgment in rem and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity to issue any notice to the respondent No.2 and further prays that the learned Single Judge ought not to have given direction for re- determination of seniority as per Rules of 1970. 10. By stating in the written statement by the State that the judgment in Shameem Ahmed's case amounted to judgment in rem, it will not become a judgment in rem at all until and unless the intention is so depicted or gathered from the judgment itself. In Shameem Ahmed's case, a relief was sought against certain respondents and relief had been given against those respondents only and, therefore, the judgment was between Shameem Ahmed and respondent Nos. In Shameem Ahmed's case, a relief was sought against certain respondents and relief had been given against those respondents only and, therefore, the judgment was between Shameem Ahmed and respondent Nos. 3 to 145 in that writ petition. The rights of the writ petitioner-respondent No.2 could not have been affected by the said judgment. It was a judgment interse between the parties in the writ petition in Shameem Ahmed's case. 11. The State of Rajasthan had also passed the order dated 18.12.1996 vis-a-vis writ petitioner respondent No.2 Ghasi Lal that the case of Ghasi Lai shall be considered for further promotion on the basis of his seniority and status in the existing post he was holding and his de-confirmation by the order dated 5.5.1980 (judgment of Shameem Ahmed's case of D.B.) shall have no effect on his further promotion. The order dated 18.12.1996 has been placed on record which reads as under: 'As per direction of the Apex Court given in the judgment dated 8.8.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 12/83 Shri J.K. Sogani & ors Vs. Shri Syed Shamim Ahmed & Ors ., it is hereby ordered that Shri Ghasilal Bairwa shall be considered for further promotion on the basis of his seniority and status in his existing post which he is holding. His de-confirmation by the order dated 5.5.80 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 444/74 shall have no effect on' his further promotion. This is being issued in compliance of order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court dated 5.12.1996 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 312/96 Shri Ghasi Lai Bairwa Vs. State .' 12. Apart from above, Civil Appeal No. 12/83 against the judgment of Syed Shamim Ahmed's case has also been finally decided and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that most of the persons concerned were working as Section Officers or Assistant Secretaries and the de-confirmation of the appellant way back in 1980 shall have no effect on the inter-se rights of the parties specially for their consideration for further promotion to the post of Assistant Secretaries and above and a direction was given that the appellant in Shameem Ahmed's case shall also be considered for further promotion on the basis of their seniority and status in their existing posts which they were holding without taking into effect the factum of de-confirmation by the impugned order. The complete order in Civil Appeal No. 12/83 passed on 20.8.96 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shameem Ahmed's case reads as under: 'This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated May 5, 1980. The High Court by impugned judgment quashed the confirmation of the appellants in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. It is not disputed that even on the date of the judgment almost all the appellants had been promoted to the higher ranks of Upper Division Clerks, Assistants and Section Officers. Most of them are at present working as Section Officers or Assistant Secretaries. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the private respondents states that the de-confirmation of the appellants way back in 1980 shall have no effect on the interse rights of the parties specially for their consideration for future promotion to the post of Assistant Secretaries and above. Due to lapse of time, the things have automatically straightened. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. We direct that the appellants shall be considered for further promotion on the basis of their seniority and status in their existing posts which they are holding without taking into effect the factum of their de-confirmation by the impugned order. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta has no objection to the view we have taken. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.' 13. Counsel for the respondent No.2 states that in view of the dear orders passed by the Government as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is hardly any necessity to go into this matter any further. It is stated at the bar that the parties are holding the post of Assistant Secretaries. They may be promoted any further and may not be, as it depends on the existence and availability of the vacancies and most of them are likely to retire in about a year or two. They were confirmed in 1970's and had been promoted as UDCs, Assistants, Section Officers and Assistant Secretaries and, therefore, the Government had taken a right stand that the respondent No.2 shall be considered for promotion from the post he was holding without taking into consideration any reconfirmation order passed in Shammem Ahmed's case even though not relating to the petitioner, but to some other respondents. Even the respondents in Shameem Ahmed's case have been given a right to continue on the same post and of further promotion without taking into consideration the de-confirmation order passed in Shameem Ahmed's case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12/83 as reproduced above. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge so far quashing the promotion orders vide impugned Annexures-B, C, D, E, F, G and H and not affecting his promotion, as had already granted long back, is not likely to be interfered and had been rightly decided. However in our opinion there was hardly any necessity for the learned Single Judge for giving any direction for redetermining the seniority list for similarly situated persons after quashing the orders of reversion of respondent No.2-writ petitioner and further ordering that the earlier promotions effected in respect to respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.3.82, 20.7.82, 29.7.87 and 20.8.88 were to be maintained. 15. In view of the above-said discussion and as a result, we uphold the order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition so far as quashing the impugned orders Annexures B, C, D, E, F, G and H are concerned. We also uphold the judgment in respect of maintaining the respective promotion orders of respondent No.2-writ petitioner for being in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also order passed by the State Government on 8.12.19% (sic 18.12.19% ?) as reproduced above. But so far as redetermination of seniority or to issue revised seniority list vis-a-vis similarly placed candidates in the cadre of LDC, UDC and Assistants are concerned, in our opinion there was hardly any necessity for such an exercise and that part of the order of the learned Single Judge for direction of revising of seniority list cannot be said to be correct direction and are not sustained.With the above-said observations, the special appeal is disposed off. Spl. Appeal Disposed Of *******