Per Massodi, J.;— 1. Letters Patent Appeals No. 186/2011 and 218/2011, arise out of Writ Court order dated 26th May 2011 in SWP No. 3437/1997, whereby it has been directed that: "a) The seniority of the petitioner shall be reckoned from 26th of April 1993asJr.Asstt. b) The seniority of the respondent No. 5 shall be reckoned from 5th of September 1993; c) The seniority of respondent No. 6 shall be reckoned from 9th February 1982. d) The respondent No. 1, is directed to effect necessary changes in the seniority in pursuance to above directions and give them all the consequential benefits in pursuance thereof." 2. In order to understand the controversy, a brief reference to the facts becomes necessary. 3. The parties to the writ petition- SWP No. 3437/1997 and present appellants except official respondents, are officers/officials of the High Court Registry. Shri Raushid Munim — petitioner in SWP No. 3437/1997, was appointed temporarily as Junior Assistant in the Main Wing of High Court on 27th May 1992, where-after he was transferred to Handwara against available vacancy of Judicial Clerk vide order No. 55 dated 24th April 1993. The petitioner was, thereafter, vide order No. 509 dated 03.10.1994 transferred to the High Court Main Wing, Srinagar against the available post. The petitioner aggrieved with his placement at S. No. 18 in the seniority list of Junior Assistants, insisted that his seniority was to be reckoned with effect from 27th May 1992 i.e. the date he was temporarily appointed as Junior Assistant in Main Wing of High Court. 4. The writ petition was opposed by respondent No. 1 Registrar, J&K High Court, Srinagar, on the ground that the petitioner was appointed against vacancy that became vacant due to suspension of Shri Ranjit Singh and once Shri Ranjit Singh was reinstated in the year 1993 pursuant to a direction passed by the Court on judicial side, the petitioner was liable to be ousted. The respondent No. 1 pleaded that as there was no vacancy against which petitioner could be adjusted, the petitioner vide order No. 55 dated 26th April 1993 was transferred and posted as Judicial Clerk, Tehsil Court Handwara, against available vacancy. The respondent No. 1 pleaded that as there was no vacancy against which petitioner could be adjusted, the petitioner vide order No. 55 dated 26th April 1993 was transferred and posted as Judicial Clerk, Tehsil Court Handwara, against available vacancy. It was pleaded that the petitioner's initial date of appointment in effect was 26th April 1993 and not 27th May 1992, when the petitioner was temporarily appointed against the vacancy that had become available due to suspension of Shri Ranjit Singh. 5. Shri Mian Rafiq Ahmad, Senior Assistant- respondent No.6, claiming to have been appointed as Junior Assistant in District Judiciary in the year 1982 and to have been transferred to the High Court Registry vide Order dated 16th September 1993, pleaded that his seniority was to be reckoned with effect from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date of his transfer to the High Court Registry. 6. Shri Safedar Sofi, Senior Assistant — respondent No. 5, in his reply to the petitioner's case, took the stand that he was initially appointed in District Judiciary on 5th September 1993 and thereafter transferred to High Court on 16th September 1993. The respondent No. 5, like respondent No.6, claimed that his seniority was to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date of his transfer to the High Court Registry. 7. The Writ Court on going through the pleadings and scanning the record found no merit in the petitioner's claim that his seniority was to be reckoned from 27th May 1992 and not from 26th April 1993 when he was transferred and posted against clear vacancy of junior Assistant Tehsil Court Handwara. It was held that initial order of temporary appointment did not clothe the petitioner with any rights in as much as temporary appointment admittedly was not against a clear vacancy. As regards respondents 5 and 6, the Writ Court held that they were entitled to have seniority reckoned from the date of initial appointment in the District Judiciary and not from the date of their transfer to the High Court Registry. 8. As regards respondents 5 and 6, the Writ Court held that they were entitled to have seniority reckoned from the date of initial appointment in the District Judiciary and not from the date of their transfer to the High Court Registry. 8. Shri Raushid Munim—petitioner in SWP No. 3437/1997, questions the Writ Court order dated 26th May 2011, whereby his seniority was directed to be reckoned from 26th April 1993 as Junior Assistant, on the ground that the order impugned does not spell out the reasons that persuaded the Writ Court to reject the petitioner's claim to the seniority as Juhior Assistant with effect from the date of his initial appointment that is 27.05.1992. It is next pleaded that the Writ Court while rendering judgement, has taken a contradictory stand while holding respondents 5 and 6 entitled to have their seniority as Junior Assistants reckoned with effect from the date of their initial appointment in the District Judiciary. It is insisted that as appellant's appointment was against a clear vacancy, reinstatement of Shri Ranjit Singh would not have any adverse affect on the appellant's seniority. 9. S/Shri Rasal Singh and his other five colleagues were not party to SWP No. 3437/1997. They nonetheless decided to throw challenge to the Writ Court order, taking the plea that their seniority was prejudicially affected by the Writ Court order. Leave was granted and appeal entertained and registered as LPA No. 218/2011. 10. The appellant's case in LPA No. 218/2011 is that they have been directly appointed as Junior Assistants in the High Court Registry on the dates shown in the para 02 of the Appeal. It is pleaded, that the judgement impugned in the appeal, is liable to be set aside on facts as well as law inasmuch as the Writ Court in effect dismissed the writ petition and while doing so, determined the seniority of respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition- respondents 2 and 3 herein. It is insisted that the Writ Court if having found no merit in the petitioner's claim could not have granted relief to respondents 5 and 6. It is pointed out that the relief granted to respondents 5 and 6 could have been granted only in a separate and independent writ petitions filed by respondents 2 and 3 and after impleading all those likely to be affected by outcome of such a writ petition. It is pointed out that the relief granted to respondents 5 and 6 could have been granted only in a separate and independent writ petitions filed by respondents 2 and 3 and after impleading all those likely to be affected by outcome of such a writ petition. It is maintained that respondents 2 and 3 on their transfer from District Judiciary to the High Court Registry were not posted against clear vacancies and thus could not claim seniority from the date of their initial appointment. The appellant's claim that the seniority of respondents is till date maintained in District Judiciary as was evidenced by Order No. 292 dated 30th July 1997, issued by Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice, whereby respondent No. 3 was temporarily promoted as Senior Assistant and posted as Senior Clerk in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil. 11. We have gone through the memoranda of appeals and have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 12. It is pertinent to point out that petitioner was temporary appointed as Junior Assistant in the grade of 1850-1150-EB-25-1500 against the post that had been became available due to suspension/dismissal from service of Shri Ranjit Singh Head Assistant charge. Once Shri Ranjeet Singh after he earned judgment in his favour, was reinstated, petitioner's ouster from service became inevitable. However in order to save the petitioner from ouster the authority took a compassionate view of the matter and appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant vide order No. 822/NG dated 18.04.1993 in Subordinate/District Judiciary and posted him in the office of Tehsildar Handwara. Though the order No. 822/NG date 18.04.1993 was styled as transfer order, yet in effect it was fresh appointment order in favour of petitioner against a clear vacancy in the Subordinate/ District Judiciary. This position is also echoed in the representation made by petitioner on 18.06.1994 to the Registrar of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir — respondent No. 1 here in. It would be worthwhile to extract following from the said representation. After having worked in the Registry for one year, Mr. Ranjit Singh Head Asstt. who was dismissed from services on charges of embezzlement, was ordered to be reinstated through court order, due to his reinstatement the entire channel of cerks was disturbed and my ouster became the talk of the town. After having worked in the Registry for one year, Mr. Ranjit Singh Head Asstt. who was dismissed from services on charges of embezzlement, was ordered to be reinstated through court order, due to his reinstatement the entire channel of cerks was disturbed and my ouster became the talk of the town. Since I was appointed after a due and proper process of law and rules it was ordered by the then Hon'ble Chief justice to adjust me in the subordinate courts for the time being till any vacancy would cause. I was also verbally assured to be brought back as soon as any vacancy accrued. I was accordingly transferred to Distt, and Sessions Judge Kupwara vide order No. 55 dated 20-4 1993 where I am still working. 13. The Writ Court therefore was right in concluding that the appellant, Raushid Munim was substantively appointed against the post of Junior Assistant on 26th April 1993 and not on 27th May 1992 when he was temporarily appointed against a vacancy that had become available due to suspension/dismissal of Shri Ranjit Singh Head Assistant. Resultantly the appellant Raushid Munim's seniority as Junior Assistant was to be reckoned from 26th April 1993 i.e. the date he was substantively appointed against the post of Junior Assistant in the Subordinate /District Judiciary and posted as such in the office of Tehsildar, Handwara. There is thus no scope for disagreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Writ Court. Having said so the appellant Raushid Munim could not in view of his unequivocal stand in the writ petition as regards relevant date for reckoning seniority of a member of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate District Judiciary transferred to the High Court Registry, dispute the claim set up by respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi. It needs to be emphasised that the appellant Raushid Munim after his substantive appointment against the clear vacancy of Junior Assistant in Subordinate/ District judiciary videorder dated 26th April 1993 was transferred to the High Court Registry vide order dated 03.10.1994. The respondent No. 1 reckoned seniority of appellant Raushid Munim with effect from 26th April 1993 i.e. the date he was substantively appointed against the post of Junior Assistant in Subordinate/District Judiciary and not from 03.10.1994 i.e. the date he was transferred from Subordinate / District Judiciary to the High Court Registry. The respondent No. 1 reckoned seniority of appellant Raushid Munim with effect from 26th April 1993 i.e. the date he was substantively appointed against the post of Junior Assistant in Subordinate/District Judiciary and not from 03.10.1994 i.e. the date he was transferred from Subordinate / District Judiciary to the High Court Registry. The case put forth up by the appellant in the writ petition therefore re-enforced the counter claim of the respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi to the effect that their seniority was to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment as Junior Assistants in Subordinate/District Judiciary and not from the date(s) they were transferred from the Subordinate/District Judiciary to the High Court Registry. Though the appellant Raushid Munim insisted on reckoning of his seniority with effect from 27th May 1992, the date on which he was temporarily appointed against the vacancy that had became available due to suspension/ dismissal of Shri Ranjit Singh — Head Assistant, yet his claim did not merit to be accepted/countenance any acceptance, for the reasons detailed by the Writ Court and reproduced above. 14. This apart the Writ Court has rightly pointed out that neither the appellant Raushid Munim nor respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi were transferred to the High Court Registrar, at their requests and therefore they were not to be denied seniority on the ground that they were initially appointed in Subordinate/District Judiciary and not in the High Court Registry. The Writ Court while holding so rightly placed reliance on law laid down in K. Madhavan & Anr. v. Union of India reported as AIR 1987 SC 2291 . In view of the well settled law, that in the event of transfer from one Department to another, a Government servant is not to be denied benefit of length of service in the post from which he was transferred, challenge to Writ Court judgement thrown by appellant Raushid Munim is destined to fail. 15. Let us now deal with the appeal filed by Shri Rasal Singh registered as LPA No. 218/2011. 16. 15. Let us now deal with the appeal filed by Shri Rasal Singh registered as LPA No. 218/2011. 16. The main thrust of the appellant's case in the afore-stated LPA is that once the Writ Court did not find any merit in the case set up by the appellant Raushid Munim — petitioner in the writ petition, there was no occasion for Writ Court to grant relief to the respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi, without their having approached the Writ Court with a separate writ petitions praying for the relief granted by the Writ Court in their favour. The ground though sounding attractive turns out to be specious once a closer look is given to the pleadings. In the first place it needs to be pointed out that the Writ Court while rejecting writ petitioner's claim to reckoning of his service from 27th May 1992 nonetheless settled the controversy as regards his seniority by holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to get his seniority as Junior Assistant reckoned with effect from 26th April 1993 i.e. the date he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Subordinate/District Judiciary. Secondly the respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi in their reply did not only opposed the writ petition but also asked for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to reckon their seniority from the date they were initially appointed in Subordinate /District Judiciary and not from the date they were transferred from Subordinate/District Judiciary. The respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi in effect set up a counter claim and the Writ Court cannot be faulted for having, without pushing the parties to multiplicity of litigation, dealt with the claim raised by respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi that too on the lines the controversy as regards date of seniority of writ petitioner Raushd Munim was settled. The appellant's case that they were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition is again of no consequence in as much as it was not for the respondents Mian Rafiq and Safedar Sofi to seek any substitution or addition to the array of respondents in the writ petition and they cannot be deprived of the benefit that may accrue to them under the impugned judgement, for the lapse not attributable to them. For the reasons discussed above there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeals and challenge to Writ Court judgement dated 26.05.2011, is bound to fail. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed.