CWP(T) No. 7116 of 2008 09.11.2010 Present: Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. It is the petitioner’s grievance that even though in terms of letter of appointment dated 24.7.1982 (Annexure-PA) his appointment was in the State cadre but however respondents have prepared zone wise seniority list which has resulted into his juniors being placed at a higher level. 2. Unfortunately petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the record produced in the Court from which it is apparent that subsequent to issuance of letter of appointment, except for petitioner No. 2, petitioners had themselves given consent for serving in the North Zone of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation. State took a policy decision to create zone wise cadre which is not under challenge here. 3. That apart Clause (4) of the appointment letter, as relied upon by the petitioner, would not make the post to be that of state cadre. It only gives discretion to the state to post the employee outside the zone. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunita Sharma and others versus State of H.P. and others, 1993 Supp (4) -2- Supreme Court Cases 686. Ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the instant facts. There Court was dealing with a case where employees were seeking enforcement of the statutory rules, unlike in the instant case where conditions governing their service of appointment voluntarily stood subsequently modified by the parties. Here there is no conflict between the Rules and the conditions of service. 5. Consequently present petition without any merits is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 9, 2010 (PK)