Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.— 1. Respondents and some other persons responded to Advertisement Notice No. 5 of 1991 dated 8th July, 1991 and sought consideration for being selected and appointed on the posts of Medical Assistant. Selection and appointment were made. The respondents-writ petitioners were not selected and appointed in the said selection process. They approached this Court in OWP No. 398/1992, reported in 1998 KLJ 779. The Writ Court came to conclusion that those of the candidates who were selected and appointed beyond the advertised posts viz 65 posts, were illegally selected and appointed. The Writ Court, however, while relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(4) Supreme 411 , on humanitarian grounds maintained the selection and appointment of those candidates who were selected and appointed beyond the advertised posts. The Writ Court issued direction to the appellants to appoint the respondents — writ petitioners. It was also directed that if vacant post will not available, then superannuary posts be created to accommodate the respondents-writ petitioners. The Letters Patent Appeal as also the Special Leave Petition filed against said judgment were dismissed. The judgment attained finality. The respondents-writ petitioners were accordingly appointed as Medical Assistant. 2. The respondents-writ petitioners filed another writ petition bearing OWP No. 1001/07 wherein they prayed that they shall be given service benefits which would include notional seniority from the date the other candidates who responded to advertisement notice no. 5 of 1991, were appointed. The Writ Court vide its judgment/order dated 1.4.2010 directed the appellants to consider respondents-writ petitioners' case for treating them to have been appointed notionally w.e.f. 23.4.1992 and to fix their seniority in terms of Rule 24(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, after considering the objections, if any, of all those who may be affected by the fixation of the notional seniority. The appellants were also directed to consider the claim of respondents-writ petitioners for giving them promotional benefits too, on the basis of the notional seniority. Direction was further issued that no monetary benefits shall be given to the respondents-writ petitioners. 3. Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy. The appellants were also directed to consider the claim of respondents-writ petitioners for giving them promotional benefits too, on the basis of the notional seniority. Direction was further issued that no monetary benefits shall be given to the respondents-writ petitioners. 3. Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy. AG in support of appeal submitted that in earlier round of litigation, no direction was given by the learned Writ Court that the respondents-writ petitioners shall be given notional appointment from the date the other candidates were appointed on the posts of Medical Assistants. Learned Dy. AG further submitted that the rights of those persons would be affected who were not party before the Writ Court. Learned Dy. AG submitted that since there was no available post of Medical Assistant, the seniority of respondents-writ petitioners could not be fixed from the earlier date. 4. It is not in dispute that respondents — writ petitioners were the candidates who sought consideration for being selected and appointed on the posts of Medical Assistant, which posts were advertised vide Notification No. 5 of 1991. Writ Court in Sudesh Pandita's case had returned finding that those of the candidates who were selected and appointed against posts beyond the advertised posts, were illegally selected . The writ court however, on humanitarian grounds in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed for regularization of their services. The candidates whose appointments were held to be illegal, are not entitled for service benefits including fixation of seniority from the date they were appointed. Had the Writ Court not taken humanitarian view, their selection and appointment would have been quashed, leaving the appellants free to make fresh selection and appointment on such posts. In this factual-background, denying claim of respondents-writ petitioners for being granted seniority from the date said candidates were selected and appointed in pursuance to Advertisement Notice no. 5 of 1991, would seriously prejudice the service right of respondents — writ petitioners. In respect of those persons who were selected and appointed beyond the number of advertised posts, the claim of respondents — writ petitioners for fixation of their seniority cannot be denied as in such circumstances, those Illegal appointed candidates would steal march over the rights of respondents - writ petitioners. In fairness and equity, it would be not possible to disallow claim of respondents — writ petitioners. 5. In fairness and equity, it would be not possible to disallow claim of respondents — writ petitioners. 5. The issue involved in 1st writ petition was not with regard to fixation of seniority but about selection and appointment of those persons who were appointed on the posts which were beyond the notified posts. The issue of fixation of seniority was not to be determined in that writ petition. Cause for fixation of seniority accrued to respondents-writ petitioners only after they were appointed. They have every right to project claim for fixation of their seniority from the earlier date. The already appointed candidates are to be given opportunity of being hearing, before re-drawing any seniority list. 6. For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMA.