O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R. Nayak) Although voluminous pleadings and documents are filed before the Court by the parties. the simple question that falls for our consideration is whether the promotion of the 5th respondent to the cadre of L.D.C. (now re-designated as Junior Assistant) by the Office Order of the learned District Judge, dated 15.10.1981 and consequent fixation of final seniority dated 1.7.1997 placing the petitioner below the 5th respondent is in accordance with law and justified. This question need not detain us for long. The necessary facts relevant to the decision-making be briefly noted as under. The petitioner joined service as Record Assistant on 26-7 -1976 whereas the 5th respondent joined service initially as Examiner with effect from 1.5.1976 and subsequently he was absorbed in the cadre of Copyist with effect from 29.7.1997. The contention of the petitioner as highlighted by his counsel at the time of hearing is that since the 5th respondent was promoted to the post of L.D.C. from the cadre of Copyist while fixing the seniority in the cadre of L.D.C., his service as Copyist alone should have been taken into account, not the service rendered as Examiner and if it is so taken the petitioner would emerge as senior to the 5th respondent in the cadre now re-designated as Junior Assistant and therefore the learned District Judge should have placed the petitioner above the 5th respondent in the final seniority list dated 1.7.1997. The contention is devoid of any merit. The provisions of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1967 (for short “the rules”) Division IV, Clause - 6, Category-5 reads: “Junior Assistants, Assistants,Nazirs, Promotion from Junior Superinten- Asst. Superinten- dents of Copyists, dents Copyists, III Grade Clerks & Examiners III Grade Typists in Courts in Telengana Amins,Readers & area, Typists and Copyist: or and Steno Typists Direct Recruitment or For Special reasons Recruit- ment by transfer from any other service” It is quite clear that both the posts of Copyist as well as the post of Examiner are the feeder cadre for promotion cadre of L.D.C. (Junior Assistant). There is no controversy that the 5th respondent entered service as Examiner with effect from 1.5.1976, that is to say, well before the petitioner entered the service as Record Assistant on 26.7.1976. There is no controversy that the 5th respondent entered service as Examiner with effect from 1.5.1976, that is to say, well before the petitioner entered the service as Record Assistant on 26.7.1976. Simply because the respondent No.5 was subsequently absorbed in the cadre of Copyist with effect from 29.7.1997, it cannot be said that the service rendered by him as Examiner should be ignored for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the promoted cadre i.e. LDC/Junior Assistant. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the learned District Judge. Since at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not having any grievance and cannot have any grievance against the promotion of the respondents 3 and 4, there is no need for us to deal with the legality and validity of the promotion of respondents 3 and 4 and placing them above the petitioner in the final seniority list dated 1-7-1997. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --X—