Judgment :- There are four writ petitions filed by two petitioners, who are Executive Engineers in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( hereinafter referred to, "the TWAD Board"). Writ Petition Nos.26859 and 26890 of 2008 have been filed by Petitioner – S.Thangaraj and Petitioner – S.Prabakar respectively seeking to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.CMWSSB/P & A/STF/RA1/3852/2007-1 dated 07.2007 whereby promotion was given to and the respondents 3 to 5 overlooking the seniority of the petitioners and for a consequential direction to include the names of the petitioner in the panel of Executive Engineers for the year 2006 -2007 for promotion as Superintending Engineer, while Writ Petition Nos.26860 and 26891 of 2007 have been filed by the same petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.P & A/STF/RAI/31197/2004, dated 03.07.2007 and consequentlydirect the respondents 1 and 2 to place the petitioner - S.Thangarajs name in the impugned seniority list immediately below Sl.No.2 Thiru.Bakavath Perumal and above Sl.No.3 Thiru.T.V.Pabhakar and the petitioner S.Prabakars name in the impugned seniority list immediately below Sl.No.2 Thiru.Bakavath Perumal and Thiru.S.Thangaraj and above Sl.No.3 Thiru.T.V.Pabhakar. 2. The petitioner S.Thangaraj is a Bachelors Decree-holder in Engineering (Electrical). He was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on 09.07.1980 in the service of the respondent Board. After serving the respondent Board for about 6 years, he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 05.09.1986. Thereafter, on 03.03.2000, he was promoted as Executive Engineer. While so, the respondent Board was constituted under the provisions of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978(hereinafter referred to the Act"). After the said Act, the respondent Board was under the control of Chennai Municipal Corporation. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Managing Director, Chief Executive of the respondent Board to be in charge of day to day administration of the Board and also to exercise supervisory power and have control over the employees of the Board. Section 81 of the Act enables the respondent Board to make Regulations not inconsistent with the Act for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 81(2) (c) of the Act, empowers the respondent Board to make regulations with regard to the method of recruitment, qualification, pay, duties and other terms and conditions of the services of officers and employees and the constitution and management of Provident Fund and other superannuation funds, etc. .3. Section 81(2) (c) of the Act, empowers the respondent Board to make regulations with regard to the method of recruitment, qualification, pay, duties and other terms and conditions of the services of officers and employees and the constitution and management of Provident Fund and other superannuation funds, etc. .3. The post of Executive Engineer, the feeder category post for Superintending Engineer is filled up by promotion among the engineering personnel in the category of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil, Mechanical and Electrical) with not less than 5 years of service in the above posts. The post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil and Mechanical) is filled up by promotion from Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers (Civil and Mechanical). In the case of Decree-holders, they should have put in a minimum of 5 years of service and candidates who passed any Diploma in Civil and Mechanical Engineering, they should have put in a total service of not less than 10 years as Junior Engineer. For the purpose of giving promotion to the officers working in the respondent Board, a proper seniority list is being maintained in which the petitioners S.Thangaraj and S.Prabakar names were found above Bakavath Perumal and below T.V.Prabhakar. But, all of a sudden, the seniority list of the petitioners were sought to be disturbed by passing the impugned proceedings in Proc.No.P & A/STF/RAI/31197/2004, dated 03.07.2007 by the 1st respondent by merely passing a resolution dated 05.07.2007 in which Bakavath Perumal and T.V.Prabhakar were shown in Sl.Nos.2 and 3 respectively and in the said process, the names of the petitioners S.Thangaraj and S.Prabakar have been pushed down to Sl.No.27 and 28 respectively. Before, finalising this seniority list of Executive Engineers, notice was given. Immediately, objections were also submitted to the 2nd respondent. The said objections were not properly considered and ignoring the objections and the reasons stated in the objections submitted by the present petitioners, the 1st respondent proceeded to finalise the proposed seniority list. The said Act being contrary to Section 81(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, W.P.Nos.26860 and 26891 of 2007 have been filed challenging the impugned common seniority list among civil/Mechanical and Electrical Engineers to the promotion post of Executive Engineers by the petitioners S.Thangaraj and S.Prabhakar respectively, while W.P.Nos.26859 and 26890 of 2007 have been filed by the same petitioners challenging the promotion given to their juniors. 4. Therefore, W.P.Nos.26860 and 26891 of 2007 have been filed challenging the impugned common seniority list among civil/Mechanical and Electrical Engineers to the promotion post of Executive Engineers by the petitioners S.Thangaraj and S.Prabhakar respectively, while W.P.Nos.26859 and 26890 of 2007 have been filed by the same petitioners challenging the promotion given to their juniors. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the resolution with regard to proposed seniority list said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent does not carry any force of law because the 2nd respondent,while exercising the power under Section 81(2) (c) of the Act or under the Employees Service Regulation 1978 of CMWSS Board ( hereinafter referred to "the Service Regulations") have not followed any of the procedures contemplated by the Boards Special Regulations 1982 or the Board has not exercised the power as contemplated under Section 81(2)(c) of the Act. Without amending the Special Regulations, the resolution which is a mere correspondence between the Board and the Managing Director cannot be given force of Regulation or the law. Therefore, the impugned order passed without amending the Service Regulations is liable to be set aside as it is not carrying any force of law. .5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board submitted that in so far as W.P.Nos.26860 of 2007 is concerned, the same is not maintainable for the simple reason that the petitioner S.Thangaraj has given no objection at the time of passing the impugned seniority list dated 03.07.2007. To substantiate his submission, the minutes of the meeting indicating the presence of the petitioner S.Thangaraj with his signature has been produced. The same was not even objected to by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. When the petitioner S.Thangaraj being a party to the meeting in which a resolution has been passed with regard to the proposed seniority list and also agreed for passing the resolution, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Board, the writ petition is not maintainable and this Court is not inclined to entertain W.P.No.26860 of 2007 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. Insofar as W.P.No.26891 of 2007 is concerned, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner -S.Prabakar submitted that the resolution passed with regard to the proposed seniority list in any event will not carry any status of rule having the force of law. Further, the same does not give any retrospective effect, in view of the fact that the petitioner-S.Prabakar has already been shown as senior in the earlier seniority list. The proposed seniority list cannot be given effect to since the alleged resolution has not been passed through proper legal process. In support of his submissions, he relied on a judgement in AIR 1967 SC 1264 wherein (N.Saksena v. The State of Madhy Pradesh). 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board submitted that the resolution has been passed only in accordance with the rules and regulations contemplated by the Service Regulations, 1982. Even well before passing the resolution proposing to redraw the seniority list of the officers working in the respondent Board, notice was given to all the Engineers and the prospective promotees and they have given their written objections not to disturb the existing seniority list stating that their rank in the earlier seniority list would be drastically affected. After having considered their representations, the matter was placed before the Board and the Board in its meeting held on 07.04.2007 in exercise of its power conferred under Section 81(2)(c) of the Act passed the resolution dated 12.04.2007. Therefore, no infirmity can be found. Therefore, the relief sought for by petitioner S.Prabakar invoking Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted. 8. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board that in any event W.P.Nos.26860 and 26891 of 2007 are not maintainable as the petitioners S.Thangaraj and S.Prabakar have not appealed against the resolution to the Board. 9. Regulation 21 of Service Regulations, 1978 deals with provisions relating to seniority and promotion of a person in the Board service with respect to a category or grade to which the petitioners originally belonged to. As per Service Regulations, 1978, it is open to the aggrieved employee to prefer an appeal to the Board against the decision of the Managing Director. Admittedly, the petitioners before filing the writ petition have not challenged the legality correctness or otherwise of the resolution before the Board. As per Service Regulations, 1978, it is open to the aggrieved employee to prefer an appeal to the Board against the decision of the Managing Director. Admittedly, the petitioners before filing the writ petition have not challenged the legality correctness or otherwise of the resolution before the Board. Further, the respondent Board has not even finalised any seniority list. While so, if the petitioner has preferred appeals to the Board as contemplated under Section 21(c) of the Service Regulation, 1978, the same could be properly considered by the Board. Since they have not approached the appellate authority viz., the Board, the present writ petitions, which have been filed without exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy provided under Section 21(c) of the Service Regulations, 1879, are not maintainable. 10. I have considered the rival submissions. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board, insofar as writ petitions filed by the petitioner–S.Thangaraj are concerned, since it has been established that he has already participated in the meeting wherein the resolution has been passed and he has consented for passing of such resolution by putting his signature in the minutes of the meeting, he cannot be allowed to challenge the proposed seniority list prepared based on the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent complaining that the reasons given in the resolution to amend the existing seniority list are not legally correct. 12. Insofar as the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner -S.Prabakar is concerned, this Court has to see whether the procedure for passing the resolution were followed or not. No doubt, Regulation 21 (c) of Service Regulations, 1978 gives sufficient protection to any aggrieved employee serving in the Board to prefer an appeal to the Board against any decision of the Managing Director, if it is going to cause any prejudice to the service conditions of an employee. The petitioner – S.Prabhakar has come forward with the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order on the ground that the resolution, which was the basis for passing the impugned order had not been passed in accordance with law and therefore, the same could not carry any force of law. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner may not stand for any reason. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner may not stand for any reason. Firstly, for the reason that the petitioner – S.Prabakar was put on notice before the proposed change of seniority list was made, for which the petitioner has given his objections to the competent authority and the same was considered. Originally, the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil / Mechanical) and the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) are filled up by direct recruitment and by transfer from other classes of category. There was a separate seniority list maintained for the post of Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineers upto the level of Assistant Engineers. A common seniority list is also maintained from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers based on the date of their joining in the promotion post (AEE). When the same was objected by Civil / Mechanical Engineers on the ground that the Electrical Engineers, who have joined duty later, are going to be placed in higher position than their counter parts in Civil and Mechanical Engineering, a three member committee was constituted in the year 2000. The said committee submitted a report compiling various grievances erupted from employees working in various levels and the same was placed before the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee in its minutes dated 25.09.2004 has constituted a new committee for the purpose of fixing a common seniority between Civil / Mechanical and Electrical discipline. On 27.01.2005, the Managing Committee has directed the members of the Committee consisting of Thiruvalargal S.Muthukumaran, Purchase Manager (then Area Engineer VI- Civil, S.Thangaraj, Area Engineer -VI (then Purchase Manager – Electrical), A.Sahasranamam, Chief Controller of Finance (then COF-IA Finance) and C.Munianathan, then General Manager Administration to get the first hand information about the procedure adopted in this matter from the Water Boards of Bangalore, Hyderabad and Jal Board, Delhi. The above said members of the Committee after visiting the above Water Boards, recommended for proposing a common seniority list among Civil, Mechanical and Electrical discipline by taking into the date of joining the service. As recommended by the said Committee, the matter was placed before the Managing Committee indicating the proposal for implementing a common seniority list and the Managing Committee in turn placed the proposal in this regard before the Board in its 274th meeting held on 07.04.2007. As recommended by the said Committee, the matter was placed before the Managing Committee indicating the proposal for implementing a common seniority list and the Managing Committee in turn placed the proposal in this regard before the Board in its 274th meeting held on 07.04.2007. The Board, after a detailed discussion, accorded approval for fixation of common seniority for Civil / Mechanical / Electrical in the Cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer based on the date of their joining in their services as Assistant Engineers subject to the fulfillment of other existing conditions. Thereafter, the Board has also permitted to publish the proposed common seniority list among the Engineers in all categories and invite objections, if any. 13. The aggrieved parties submitted their respective objections before the Board and the only objection raised by the objectors was that the common seniority should not be drawn on the basis of date of joining the services. The Board has considered separately each and every objections made by the parties including the petitioners S.Thangaraj and S.Prabakar. While dealing with their objections, the Board has dealt with the petitioners objection also. The petitioner S.Thangaraj was one of the members of the Electrical discipline and after taking into account the nature of job involved in the streams of Civil / Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, he has not objected to the recommendations of the committee. He has agreed to the proposed seniority list and signed in the report of the Committee and the seniority has been fixed based on the Service Regulations, 1978 and as per the resolution of the Board. Therefore, the objections of the petitioners were overruled. 14. The common seniority list which has been proposed to be finalised is only for the purpose of giving uniform benefit to all the employees working in the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. In any event, preparing a seniority list on the basis of the date of their joining as Assistant Engineers cannot be found fault with. Further, the objections were called for from the aggrieved parties and after analysing the position and meeting out their objections, the resolution came to be passed for giving uniform benefit and thereafter, the impugned seniority list was published. Further, the objections were called for from the aggrieved parties and after analysing the position and meeting out their objections, the resolution came to be passed for giving uniform benefit and thereafter, the impugned seniority list was published. The further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the resolution has not been passed in accordance with the provisions envisaged under Rule 21(2) (c) of the Service Regulation, 1978 also cannot be accepted since the respondent Board passed the resolution only after complying with the provisions of Regulation 21A of the Service Regulations, 1978.The 1st respondent has passed the resolution in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 81(2)(c) of the Act fixing the date of entry into service as Assistant Executive Engineers as criterion for the purpose of giving promotional opportunity to the Engineering personnel of the Board. This is being acceptable criterion, this Court does not find any substance in the case of the petitioners. Further, when this criterion was accepted by the petitioner S.Thangaraj himself at the time when he participated in the committee meeting, he cannot now be allowed to take a "U" turn and object to the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. The petitioner S.Prabakar joined the Board service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 09.07.1980 while the 3rd respondent T.V.Prabhakar joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 210. 1979, which is prior to the petitioner S.Prabakar. While that being so, the contention of the petitioner S.Prabakar that his seniority will be affected, if the 3rd respondent T.V.Prabhakar is kept above him, cannot be accepted. 15. For all the foregoing discussions, the writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently connected MPs are closed. No costs.