Judgment : Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 2. The two petitioners herein have challenged the order of the second respondent dated 011. 1997 in allowing the two appeals filed by the fourth respondent in each of the writ petition. The two petitioners as well as the fourth respondent in each of the writ petition were working as packers in the first respondent Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. They were all working initially as apprentice / trainees and at the time of absorption into regular employment, a state-wide seniority list was maintained. Subsequently, they were all absorbed as packers by the Civil Supplies Corporation. 3. When they were transferred from Chengalpet region to Vellore, the petitioners joined the new station whereas the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 17770 of 1997 gave a letter dated 06. 1993 to the first respondent seeking for retention at Chengalpet due to family circumstances. Accordingly, he was retained at Chengalpet. However, he found that persons, who were transferred to Vellore, were getting promotion as Bill Clerks. By a proceedings dated 07.02.1994, the petitioners names were found in the panel for the post of Bill Clerks and objections were called for against the said panel. 4. The fourth respondent Swarnaraj filed his objection stating that he could not join duty at Vellore due to administrative reasons and he was relieved from the post only on 210. 1993 and thereafter, joined at Vellore and, therefore, his seniority should be restored at Vellore above the names of the petitioners. This was rejected by the Senior Regional Manager vide proceedings dated 15. 1994 and the final seniority list as on 312. 1993 was circulated with a covering letter dated 111. 1994 in which the petitioners names were shown above the fourth respondent. G. Pandithurai, the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 17769 of 1997, also gave representation to alter the final seniority list. 5. In the meanwhile, since there was want of vacancies, the fourth respondent in each of the writ petition were reverted from the posts of Bill Clerks to that Packers by proceedings 112. 1996. As against the said reversion order, the fourth respondents in the two writ petitions by name G. Pandithurai and Swarnaraj filed two writ petitions being W. Ps. Nos. 19188 of 1996 and 19153 of 1996 respectively to set aside the consequential reversion. 1996. As against the said reversion order, the fourth respondents in the two writ petitions by name G. Pandithurai and Swarnaraj filed two writ petitions being W. Ps. Nos. 19188 of 1996 and 19153 of 1996 respectively to set aside the consequential reversion. However, this Court, by an order dated 20.12.1996, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that they had not exhausted the alternative remedy. 6. It is against the said order of reversion dated 112. 1996, they had filed two appeals dated 212. 1996 before the second respondent and no provision of the Service Rule for filing such appeal was quoted therein. In their appeal memorandum, they had collaterally attacked the alteration of the seniority list. Both fourth respondents claimed that in the initial state-wide seniority list for trainee / apprentice, their names found places above the names of the petitioners. But when they were transferred to Vellore region, they could not join immediately and due to administrative delay, their joining at Vellore was delayed for which they cannot be blamed and persons like the petitioners, who joined earlier, due to fortuitous circumstances cannot claim seniority and then continue to retain their promoted posts. 7. The second respondent, taking the two representations as appeals and without notice to any of the aggrieved parties, allowed the appeals and restored their seniority in the panel for Bill Clerks over and above the petitioners. The first respondent, in his impugned orders dated 011. 1997, held that the fourth respondents delay in joining at Vellore was not due to their fault but due to administrative delay. It is against this order, the two present writ petitions have been filed. 8. Though initially notice of motion was ordered subsequently, the two writ petitions were admitted on 19.02.2003 and this Court refused to grant any interim order. A counter affidavit dated 11. 2002 was also filed justifying the order passed by the second respondent. 9. Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel, pointed out that there was no appeal provision under the Service Rules against the order of reversion granted to the fourth respondents. Further, when the draft seniority list of Bill Clerks was published, Swarnaraj, the fourth respondent in the latter W.P., though objected, his objection was overruled and final list was published, which was not challenged by him. In fact, only when they were reverted by an order dated 112. Further, when the draft seniority list of Bill Clerks was published, Swarnaraj, the fourth respondent in the latter W.P., though objected, his objection was overruled and final list was published, which was not challenged by him. In fact, only when they were reverted by an order dated 112. 1996, they came before this Court to challenge the reversion order. The fourth respondents cannot collaterally challenge the seniority list which became final by order dated 15. 1994. The reason given by the second respondent in allowing the appeals made a special plea on behalf of the fourth respondents. 10. He further submitted that when passing the order, the second respondent did not take into account the letters dated 06. 1993 written by Swarnaraj and letter dated 04. 1996 written by Pandithurai. They had avoided their transfer by seeking retention in the old region and they should suffer for the same. It was only when promotional opportunities became bright in the Vellore region, they hurriedly got relieved and came to that region. So long as the seniority list had become final without any objection by either of the fourth respondents, the consequential reversion is natural. Therefore, the finding rendered by the second respondent that there was an administrative delay in relieving them from Chengalpet region, is contrary to the records available even with the first respondent. 11. Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in each of the writ petition submitted that the orders passed by the second respondent was based upon office records and no exception can be taken for the findings rendered by him. 12. The learned counsel for the fourth respondents was unable to explain the circumstances under which the letter dated 06. 1993 and 04. 1996 were written by the fourth respondents. He was also unable to explain as to why the fourth respondents have not challenged the seniority list published in the year 1992, which had become final. 13. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there cannot be any collateral attack on the seniority list when the fourth respondents were faced with orders of reversion. Such a collateral attack after a period of three years, cannot be allowed. Even the challenge to the reversion order before this Court in two writ petitions was rejected. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there cannot be any collateral attack on the seniority list when the fourth respondents were faced with orders of reversion. Such a collateral attack after a period of three years, cannot be allowed. Even the challenge to the reversion order before this Court in two writ petitions was rejected. The second respondent had also not indicated under what Service Rule, the appeals filed by the fourth respondents were heard and as to why the so-called appeals were allowed without hearing any of the affected persons. 14. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 011. 1997 will stand set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. However, there will be no orders as to costs.