JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. The writ Petitioner was appointed as a District Sports Coordinator on 26-6-1995 with the Arunachal Pradesh State Sports Council. The private Respondents were also appointed as District Sports Coordinator with the Arunachal Pradesh State Sports Council but a little later, in August, 1995. 2. The Arunachal Pradesh Sports Council was later merged with the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the writ Petitioner and the private Respondents were taken on deputation as Sports Officers in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs by an order dated 16-12-1996. The posts of District Sports Coordinator with the Arunachal Pradesh State Sports Council and Sports Officers in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs are equivalent posts. 3. Subsequently, by an order dated 6-7-2001, the private Respondents were permanently absorbed in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs w.e.f. 2-7-2001. No order of absorption appears to have been passed in respect of the writ Petitioner who continued on deputation. 4. Thereafter, on 5-3-2003 the official Respondents prepared a seniority list of Sports Officers working in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs. The writ Petitioner found that his name was not included in the provisional seniority list and, therefore, he made representations for his inclusion in the seniority list. No decision seems to have been taken regarding inclusion of the name of the writ Petitioner in the provisional seniority list or absorbing him in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs and a final seniority list came to be published by the official Respondents on 29-4-2003. 5. Later, by an order dated 4-8-2005 the writ Petitioner was also permanently absorbed in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs w.e.f. 2-7-2001 which is the same date from which the private Respondents were permanently absorbed. In view of this, the writ Petitioner required the official Respondents to correct the seniority list but since no action was taken he filed WP(C) No. 99(AP)/2006 for setting aside the seniority list dated 29-4-2003 and placing him in the fresh seniority list above the private Respondents. This writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 7-3-2007 and it was directed that the official Respondents will take out a fresh seniority list of all Sports Officers by taking into consideration all the relevant factors including determining the seniority of the writ Petitioner. 6. This writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 7-3-2007 and it was directed that the official Respondents will take out a fresh seniority list of all Sports Officers by taking into consideration all the relevant factors including determining the seniority of the writ Petitioner. 6. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 99(AP)/2006 the official Respondents came out with a fresh seniority list dated 30-7-2009 in which the writ Petitioner was placed below the private Respondents. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 21-7-2010 which is under challenge. The learned Single Judge took the view that the writ Petitioner was senior to the private Respondents. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the placement of the writ Petitioner above the private Respondents in the seniority list. 9. In Dev Dutta and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 553 the Supreme Court dealt with the concept of absorption in service jurisprudence and held that when a person is absorbed in a particular department, he becomes a holder of a post in that department in his own right and loses his lien on his parent post. 10. It follows from the above that when two or more persons are absorbed in a particular department, they would reckon the seniority from the date of absorption. In the case before us the private Respondents and the writ Petitioner were all absorbed w.e.f. the same date that is, 2-7-2001. Therefore, they will reckon their seniority in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs from that date. 11. The question before us is what would be their inter-se seniority. Insofar as this is concerned, in the absence of any rule one way or the other, we would have to proceed on the basis that the length of continuous service in the grade (or equivalent post) would be the determining factor. Both the private Respondents came to the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs as Sports Officers on 7-8-1995 and 30-8-1995 respectively. Both the private Respondents came to the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs as Sports Officers on 7-8-1995 and 30-8-1995 respectively. On the other hand the writ Petitioner came to the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs as Sports Officer a few months earlier on 26-6-1995. Applying the rule of length of continuous service in the grade or equivalent post, in the absence of any other rule made available to us, we have no option but to hold that the writ Petitioner would rank senior to the private Respondents. 12. Learned Counsel for the private Respondents, however, sought to rely on R.K. Mobisana Singh v. Kh. Temba Singh and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 747 . He referred to paragraph 42 of the above decision which reads as under: 42. It was obligatory on the part of the official Respondents to take into consideration that the retrospective regularization could be granted only when there exists such a rule. If the Rules were not followed at the time of grant of promotion, question of grant of regularisation with retrospective effect would not arise. Retrospective regularization, whether in terms of the directions of the High Court or otherwise, thus, although could confer other service benefits on the officer concerned, but the same cannot be held to be of any assistance for reckoning seniority with retrospective. 13. We are unable to appreciate the relevance of the passage cited by learned Counsel for the private Respondents. That apart, it appears that on a reading of the decision cited by learned Counsel that it pertains to determining the seniority of retrospectively regularized ad hoc promotees, vis--vis direct recruits. That is clearly not the issue before us and we, therefore, think that this decision cannot at all advance the case of the private Respondents. 14. Learned Counsel then referred to Union of India and Anr. v. Onkar Chand and Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 298 particularly paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision. In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with Clause 7(iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 22-12-1959. In terms of that clause, when a person is appointed by transfer in accordance with the recruitment rules, he would rank below all the direct recruits or promotees selected on the same occasion. Again this is not the issue before us. 15. In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with Clause 7(iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 22-12-1959. In terms of that clause, when a person is appointed by transfer in accordance with the recruitment rules, he would rank below all the direct recruits or promotees selected on the same occasion. Again this is not the issue before us. 15. We are only concerned with the inter-se seniority of the private Respondents and the writ Petitioner all of whom came to the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs on deputation and were absorbed w.e.f. 2-7-2001. We are of the view that in the absence of any other rule shown to us, the length of continuous service put in by the private Respondents and the writ Petitioner will determine their inter-se seniority. As we have noted above, since the writ Petitioner joined almost two months before the private Respondents he will rank senior to them. 16. We find no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed