Judgment :- The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. In the Board the post of Junior Water Analyst was considered to be a post in which various categories working in different departments of the Board are entitled to be considered. The Junior Water Analyst post is filled up either by direct recruitment or by transfer from other service. The petitioner made an application to be considered and being in the Ministerial service and having in possession of the decree with B.Sc. (Botony), his case was considered and he was also posted as Junior Water Analyst. The petitioner had a grievance that his seniority in the post of Junior Assistant in the Ministerial service was not taken into account. Earlier he filed a writ petition being W.P.No.11982 of 1991. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 05.03.2001. In that order, it was stated that he is entitled to get promoted with retrospective effect and if such a claim is made, it requires independent consideration and the petitioner was given liberty to invoke appropriate jurisdiction in a manner known to law. The petitioner made several representations to the Board and the Board passed an order dated 22.08.1997 signed by the Joint Chief Engineer stating that the post of Junior Assistant comes under the Ministerial service whereas the Junior Water Analyst comes under the General Subordinate Service. The petitioner was also selected by an order dated 03.08.1996 for the appointment of Junior Water Analyst and therefore, seniority in that post cannot be taken and restored to any higher level by taking into account his past service in the post of Junior Assistant. 2. Mr.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seniority list published by the Board for the post of Water Supply Analyst, dated 24.07.2003, showing the status as on 01.01.2002, showed his name in the seniority list at Sl.No.30 whereas even juniors to him in the post of Junior Assistant such as K.John James, shown in the seniority list as Sl.No.23, who joined as Junior Assistant on 11.02.1987. 3. This submission though attractive, it cannot be accepted on two grounds i.e., (1) in the present writ petition, no seniority list is under challenge, in which case, the Board must be forced to justify the various placement. 3. This submission though attractive, it cannot be accepted on two grounds i.e., (1) in the present writ petition, no seniority list is under challenge, in which case, the Board must be forced to justify the various placement. Secondly, it fails to take into account the list being arranged on the roaster point and there is no case of any person belonged to other communities shown above the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be allowed to attack the seniority list in a collateral proceedings. The reason found in the impugned order that his past service in the Ministerial cadre cannot be considered, is not only in accordance with the regulation but also correct in service jurisprudence. No case made out. None of the persons who allegedly junior to the petitioner have also been made parties so as to examine the question as to whether any junior has been shown as senior to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.