Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of the present writ petition, following reliefs have been claimed: (a) Direct the respondent No.1 to place on record the decision taken by them of re-designating the respondents No. 2 to 4 as clerks with effect from 1.1.1998 on the basis of which supplementary affidavit dated 20.8.2009 was filed and to issue writ of certiorari quashing the said decision and the supplementary affidavit dated 20.8.2009 filed before this Hon’ble Court. (b) Direct the respondent, by way of issuance of writ of mandamus, to make promotion strictly in accordance with the existing seniority list of clerk as it stood on 1.1.2005, and not to reflect the respondents No. 2 to 4 above the petitioner in the seniority list of clerks and further not to promote respondents No. 2 to 4 to the post of Junior Assistant.” 2. The case of the petitioner set out in the writ petition in a nut shell is that the supplementary affidavit dated 20.8.2009 Annexure P-9 to this writ petition should have not been filed to the detriment of the petitioner who was regularized as a clerk vide order dated 30.11.1999 Annexure P-2, pursuant to the judgment Annexure P-1 passed by this Court in Civil Writ No.106 of 1991, he had filed earlier. 3. The record reveals that it is on the basis of supplementary affidavit Annexure P-9, the contents whereof read that since the petitioners in CWP(T) No.7518/2008 were ready to forego the arrears of pay in case they were re-designated as clerks from the date of their regularization as office helpers, the respondent-Corporation was ready to re-designate them as clerks in the pay-scale of Rs.3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1998, order dated 28.8.2008Annexure P-8, directing thereby the respondent-Corporation to do the needful in accordance with supplementary affidavit within six weeks came to be passed. 4. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was working as a clerk, but was being paid the wages of helper and ultimately was regularized as a clerk pursuant to judgment dated 13.12.1995, Annexure P-1 of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by him. Respondents No. 2 to 4 were working as office helpers. There seems to be no cadre of office helpers in the office of respondent-Corporation. Therefore, they were re-designated as clerks vide office order dated 5.10.2005 Annexure R2/2. Respondents No. 2 to 4 were working as office helpers. There seems to be no cadre of office helpers in the office of respondent-Corporation. Therefore, they were re-designated as clerks vide office order dated 5.10.2005 Annexure R2/2. Since they were working as office helpers from the year 1997, they filed OA No.138 of 2001 in the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal with the prayer that they may be regularized/re-designated as clerks w.e.f. 1.1.1998. On the abolition of the Administrative Tribunal, the said OA came to be transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.7518/2008. It is in that petition, affidavit Annexure P-9 came to be filed by the respondent-Corporation. On the basis of this affidavit, this Court passed order Annexure P-8, which reads as follows: “Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that in view of the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed. The needful be done within six weeks from today. It shall not, however, be treated as precedent. In view of the fair stand adopted by the respondents, the presence of Managing Director, Forest Corporation is not required.” 5. The stand of the respondent Corporation, as emerges from para-7 of the reply, reads as follows: “7. That the contents of this para are matter of record. It is further submitted that replying respondent corporation has complied with the Hon’ble court orders dated 28.8.09 and thus re-designated the respondent no. 2 to 4 as clerk on personal post w.e.f. 1.1.98 vide office order No.225 dated 7.10.2009 attached herewith as annexure R-1. The petitioner is in the cadre post and whereas the respondent no.2 to 4 are I n personal post. For the personal post, there is a separate seniority list and for the cadre post there is a separate seniority list. For the placement to the post of junior assistant, the clerks holding the personal post have to come to the cadre post and from that day, their seniority will be taken into account. Thus, the petitioner is no where affected by the re-designation of respondent no.2 to 4 as clerk on personal post w.e.f. 1.1.98. As such, the petitioner mere on the basis of apprehensions has filed the present petition. 6. However, to the contrary, the respondent-Corporation has circulated seniority list Annexure PR-2 of clerks as it stood on 1.10.2012. Thus, the petitioner is no where affected by the re-designation of respondent no.2 to 4 as clerk on personal post w.e.f. 1.1.98. As such, the petitioner mere on the basis of apprehensions has filed the present petition. 6. However, to the contrary, the respondent-Corporation has circulated seniority list Annexure PR-2 of clerks as it stood on 1.10.2012. In the seniority list, respondents No. 2 to 4 have been proposed to be placed above the petitioner at Sl. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 respectively; whereas he is at Sl. No.12. Not only this, but as per office order dated 4.3.2011 Annexure PR-1, respondents No. 2 to 4 whose names figure at Sl. Nos. 7, 15 and 17, have been inducted into clerical cadre with immediate effect, i.e. 4.3.2011, the date of issuance of this office order. 7. The only stand of the respondent-Corporation as brought to the notice of this Court, during the course of arguments, is that seniority over and above the petitioner has been assigned to respondents No. 2 to 4 in view of the order Annexure P-8 of this Court in CWP No.7518/2008. 8. It is significant to note that the petitioner is already in clerical cadre. As per tentative seniority list Annexure P-4 of the Clerks as on 1.1.2005, he was at Sl.No.31. He was one of the candidates in the zone of consideration for the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2009, as is evident from Annexure P-5 in which his name is reflected at Sl. No.23. On 20.8.2009, when the supplementary affidavit Annexure P-9 was filed in the writ petition filed by the private respondents, the petitioner was already in clerical cadre on the establishment of the respondent-Corporation. 9. It would not be proper to make any observation on merits of the case and suffice would it be to say that this situation should have been kept in mind by the respondent-Corporation while filing the affidavit, more particularly, when the petitioner and the persons likely to be affected by the regularization of the private respondents as clerks from back date i.e. 1.1.1998, were not party-respondents in that petition. 10. Also, the stand of the respondent– Corporation is that the petitioner is working against the cadre post whereas the private respondents are working against personal posts. Not only this, but for a personal post there exists a separate seniority and for cadre post, separate. 10. Also, the stand of the respondent– Corporation is that the petitioner is working against the cadre post whereas the private respondents are working against personal posts. Not only this, but for a personal post there exists a separate seniority and for cadre post, separate. Now, contrary to such stand, in reply to the writ petition, tentative seniority list Annexure PR-2 has been circulated. No doubt the same is not yet final and being tentative, representations, if any, thereto have been invited by 30.11.2012. It may be a harsh case for the petitioner. However, since the respondent-Corporation has acted in this matter pursuant to order Annexure P-8 passed by a Coordinate Bench, the propriety and judicial hierarchy demand that this Court should not comment upon such judgment nor the supplementary affidavit Annexure P-9 filed in that writ petition can be quashed. The appropriate course available to the petitioner was to have approached this Court by filing appropriate application, seeking his impleadment in CWP(T) No.7518/2008 for re-calling/reviewing the order Annexure P-8 and final order dated 14.10.2009 Annexure R-2/3 passed in that writ petition. A substantive petition is not maintainable. 11. I am not in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that orders Annexures P-8 and R-2/3 are not open to any review or modification being passed on the basis of supplementary affidavit alone without there being any adjudication of the rights on merits, for the reason that irrespective of that writ petition having been disposed of vide order passed on 14.10.2009 Annexure R-2/3 to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 in terms of order Annexure P-8, dated 28.8.2008 passed therein on the basis of supplementary-affidavit alone, the same was binding on both the parties as in the order Annexure P-8 there was a specific direction to the respondent-Corporation to do the needful as per the supplementary affidavit and as such any clarification/modification of this order, could have been sought by filing appropriate petition/application only in that writ petition. 12. If coming to the tentative seniority list Annexure PR/2, the petitioner may have made representation against that, and if not on account of pendency of this writ petition or for any other reason, in case he now makes any representation, it is expected from the respondent-Corporation to entertain and decide the same in accordance with law as a special case. 13. 13. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing appropriate application in CWP (T) No.7518/2008, if so advised, and also to make representation against the tentative seniority, within four weeks from today, if not already made. If the representation is made within the time as stipulated, the respondent-Corporation shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law before finalization of the final seniority list. Till then there shall be no placement against the post of Junior Assistant. 14. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.