ORDER : (R. DEVDAS, J.) Learned counsel Sri.Sunil S.Desai has entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 to 8 by filing caveat petition. 2. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.9 to 11. 3. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, nevertheless, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contesting respondents and the learned Government Advocate, this court proceeds to take up the matter for final disposal. 4. The petitioners have filed this writ petition calling in question an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi in Application Nos.10310-10317/2021 dated 15.02.2023 and a subsequent order at Annexure-E which is nothing but a revised seniority list dated 01.03.2025. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has raised an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable having regard to the orders passed by the Tribunal and the consequential revised seniority list at the hands of respondent No.11. Learned counsel submitted that the contesting respondents herein had filed an application before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari to consider their representations dated 12.02.2020 in the matter of revision of the senior list on the basis of the modified date of eligibility which should have been taken into consideration at the time of preparing the seniority list. Considering the grievance of the contesting respondents, the Tribunal passed an order dated 15.02.2023, while allowing the application, directions were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representations dated 12.02.2020 modifying the date of eligibility on the basis of the vacancies available under promotion quota as on 02.01.2015 for considering the case of the applicants under Rule 32 of the KCSR and settle the issue. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari took up the matter for reconsideration in the light of the representations given by the contesting respondents herein. Learned counsel has pointed out to the written objections given by the petitioners herein on 12.03.2024 at Annexure-D and submits that admittedly, the petitioners herein have filed objections to the consideration of the representations given by the contesting respondents herein. The Deputy Commissioner, after having considered the objections filed by the petitioners proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 at Annexure-E modifying the seniority list, accepting the contentions raised by the contesting respondents herein. The Deputy Commissioner, after having considered the objections filed by the petitioners proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 at Annexure-E modifying the seniority list, accepting the contentions raised by the contesting respondents herein. Learned counsel would therefore submit that in this writ petition, the petitioners cannot directly raise a challenge to the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, since the avenue open for the petitioners is to approach the KSAT, if they are aggrieved thereby. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that the petitioners were not arrayed as party- respondents to the proceedings in Application Nos.10310- 10317/2021, where allegations were made against the petitioners for having placed them above in the seniority list. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal and therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 7. In the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioners had filed written objections to the representations given by the contesting respondents and the Deputy Commissioner has considered the objections filed by the petitioners herein, the passing of the impugned order at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari on 01.03.2025 is a fresh cause of action for the petitioners to have challenged before the KSAT. Even if it is a case where the petitioners were not arrayed as party-respondents to the proceedings in the earlier applications filed by the contesting respondents herein, nevertheless, that cannot be a ground to entertain this writ petition. The direction issued by the Tribunal to the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari was to consider the representations given by the contesting respondents herein. This court is not required to go into the issue as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has considered the objections filed by the petitioners herein. That issue has to be considered by the Tribunal, if an application is filed by the petitioners herein. 8. For the reasons stated above, since the writ petition cannot be maintainable at this stage, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners herein to approach the KSAT to raise a question on the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 01.03.2025. Ordered accordingly.