Sanjay Misra, J:- The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22 July 2013. Six persons who were appointed as Junior Accounts Clerks had moved writ proceedings before this Court challenging their termination. By a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19 April 1990 the order of termination was set aside and an order of reinstatement was passed without a consequential order of payment of arrears of salary. Admittedly, all these six persons were appointed in 1985 whereas the appellant in these proceedings was appointed in 1986. In order to give effect to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, an order was passed by the District Development Officer, Pilibhit (the first respondent) placing the appellant in the seniority list immediately below those six persons. The appellant challenged the communication of the first respondent dated 18 March 1996 in writ proceedings. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has observed that the order which had been passed was consequential to the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to implement the directions contained therein. Hence the petition has been dismissed. 2. The learned Single Judge in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment and order dated 19 April 1990 took note of the fact that there were certain persons, who had been appointed after the six persons who were the petitioners in the earlier proceedings. Having regard to this position, it was urged that the learned Single Judge has protected the appointment of persons such as the appellant. 3. A careful reading of the operative directions of the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 19 April 1990 would make it clear that the Court denied the arrears of salary to the six petitioners, who had moved the Court on the earlier occasion on the ground that subsequent to their appointment others had been appointed in service. However, once reinstatement was granted to the six petitioners, the seniority list had to be suitably rectified to give effect to the order. The appellant was admittedly appointed after them and hence there can be no merit in his grievance. Finally, it may be observed that the appointment of those six persons cannot be questioned by the appellant at this stage, particularly in the absence of their being impleaded as parties to the writ proceedings. The appellant was admittedly appointed after them and hence there can be no merit in his grievance. Finally, it may be observed that the appointment of those six persons cannot be questioned by the appellant at this stage, particularly in the absence of their being impleaded as parties to the writ proceedings. Therefore, considering the matter from any perspective, no case for interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is made out. The special appeal is dismissed. ___________________