Judgment :- 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent / the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Chennai, in G.O.No.158, Revenue (L.A.3(2) Department), dated 20.02.2004, by calling for the records connected thereto. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 8 were initially appointed as Surveyor-cum-Draughtsman in the year 1983, through employment exchange, on consolidated pay basis under Updating Registry Scheme, that was introduced by the Government for updating the registry throughout the State. Thereafter, the respondents 4 to 6 were absorbed into the time scale of pay as Draughtsman on 01.09.1987, respondents 7 and 8 were absorbed on 28.03.1988 and 01.12.1989 respectively and the petitioner was absorbed into time scale of pay as Surveyor only on 06.08.1992. Therefore, it was contended that when the official respondents 1 to 3 regularised the service of the petitioner and the contesting respondents 4 to 8 by various G.O., the contesting respondents 4 to 8 were regularised only in the post of Draughtsman, whereas the petitioner was regularised in the post of Surveyor by order dated 06.08.1992. If that be the case, he pleaded, the land of the petitioner should have found its place as Surveyor above the names of contesting respondents 4 to 8, for, when there was a regularisation order dated 07.11.1990 regularising the service of the contesting respondents 4 to 8 in the post of Draughtsman, they cannot place the petitioner below the contesting respondents 4 to 8 by passing the present impugned order dated 20.02.2004, that too, taking away the benefit of seniority, hence, he prayed for interference in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 20.02.2004. 3. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8, by filing a counter, submitted that the writ petition is completely misconceived and the impugned order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the first respondent only grants exemption from passing departmental test, therefore, the same cannot be questioned, especially when the present impugned order is only a consequential order to the earlier order passed by the official respondents on 25.03.1999 and 25.06.1999. It was further submitted that though the petitioner was appointed in the second respondent department along with contesting respondents 4 to 8, in the year 1990, he went on transfer to the Revenue department forgoing his seniority. It was further submitted that though the petitioner was appointed in the second respondent department along with contesting respondents 4 to 8, in the year 1990, he went on transfer to the Revenue department forgoing his seniority. Therefore, he pleaded, the petitioner, having forgone his seniority, cannot challenge the present impugned order, which is only consequential order to the earlier order passed by the official respondents on 25.03.1999 and 25.06.1999 and admittedly, the two original orders giving seniority over the petitioner had not been challenged by the petitioner till now, hence, no purpose will be served by wrongly entertaining this writ petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is no doubt true that the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 8 were appointed in the second respondent department as Surveyor-cum-Draughtsman on a consolidated pay and thereafter, all these person were absorbed into time scale of pay in the year 1990. Again, it is also an admitted fact that in the year 1990, the petitioner, by forgoing his seniority in the second respondent department, went to the Revenue department and during that time i.e. in the year 1990, the official respondents prepared the combined seniority list of Surveyor and Draughtsman, in which, the petitioner's name was not found place. Thereafter, in the year 1992, the petitioner was absorbed into time scale of pay on 06.08.1992 as Surveyor. Again, in the year 1999, the official respondents published the combined seniority list of Draughtsman and Survey, wherein, admittedly, the name of the petitioner was found place below the contesting respondents 4 to 8, which was passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 25.03.1999. Again, in the year 1999, the official respondents published the combined seniority list of Draughtsman and Survey, wherein, admittedly, the name of the petitioner was found place below the contesting respondents 4 to 8, which was passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 25.03.1999. But, even now, the petitioner has not challenged the said seniority list dated 25.03.1999, but, in contra, he has challenged the consequential order passed in G.O.No.158, Revenue (L.A.3(2) Department), dated 20.02.2004, which is impugned herein, therefore, in these circumstances, when a question put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has challenged earlier proceedings dated 25.03.1999, he has fairly conceded that the petitioner has not challenged the earlier proceeding dated 25.03.1999, which had crystallised the seniority list between the petitioner and the contesting respondents 4 to 8. Therefore, the present writ petition challenging only the consequential order without challenging the original and concluded orders falls to ground. 7. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.