B. S. CHANHAN, J. In this writ petition the main challenge now is to the order dated 10-9-1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Education rejecting the claim of the petitioners as they were not found entitled to the salaries under the provisions of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971. The management also filed a writ petition No. 36580/92 supporting the claim of the petitioners in the other connected writ petition. The factual gamut is revealed as under : There is an institute namely Bhagwan Parshuram Dham Uchchatar Madhyamik Viddhyalaya, Sahanag, Salernpur, Deoria. The said school was previously merely a Junior Hight School and was upgraded in 1982 to High School. Prior to the date of up gradation only 19 posts had been sanctioned by the appropriate authority vide its order dated 29-8-1981. As a consequence of the up gradation, the persons working on the said 19 posts had been absorbed as per the provisions of Chapter II, Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 (hereinafter called the Act ). Subsequently 19 more posts had been sanctioned vide orders dated 2-12-1988 and 7-11-1990* The said sanction had been granted with a rider that the incumbent* of the said newly created posts shall be paid by the management and the Govern ment shall not be responsible for their salaries etc. The said institution was also given grant-in-aid with effect from 1-4-1991. The petitioners were not paid salaries under the provisions of 1971 Act. The Deputy Director of Education vide impugned order dated 10-9- 1992 found the petitioners non suited as they were found to have been appointed under the provisions of 7-AA and 7-AB of the 1921 Act. The said provisions provide that State shall not be responsible for the salaries etc. for the employees appointed under the said provisions as they would be absolute liability of the management. 2. Shri T. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemen tly challenged the finding of fact reached by the Deputy Director of Education. Impugned order makes it clear that petitioners failed to produce any evidence before the Deputy Director of Education regarding their employment, including the letters of appointment or any material disclosing the procedure and for malities followed while appointing the petitioners. Confronted with this fact situation Mr. Impugned order makes it clear that petitioners failed to produce any evidence before the Deputy Director of Education regarding their employment, including the letters of appointment or any material disclosing the procedure and for malities followed while appointing the petitioners. Confronted with this fact situation Mr. Tewari relied upon chart tiled as an Annexure 5 to the supple mentary affidavit before this court. When the said chart was scrutinised thoroughly, I found the most distressing and purturbing facts from it. Some petitioners had been shown in the chart as possessing the qualifications of B. S. , B. Ed. and other eligible qualifications at the relevant time of their appointment but they were miner on the said date. Mr. Tewari could not furnish any explanation whatsoever for filing such forged and fabricated document before me also showing the appointment letters etc. of the petitioners. 3. The sheet-anchor of the w hole claim of the petitioners is the said chart purported to have been prepared by the Managing Committee, the petitioner in the writ petition No. 36580/1992. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners was also not in a position to deny specifically that some of the petitioners were relatives of the office bearers of the management. The Statutes have imposed a complete embargo to give employment to persons falling under this category. 4. Shri T. N. Tewari. learned counsel submits that all the petitioner^ had not been minor or relatives of the office-bearers of the managing Committee and their cases may be considered. No separate evidence has been filed before this Court, for such petitioners and it is not possible to place any reliance on the said chart. It is, however, beyond my imagination as to why the petitioners have not produced the said documents to prove their case, before this Court, particularly when such crystal clear observation had been given against them by the Deputy Director of Education. Mr. Tewari, did not ask the Court to give some time to place the said material before this Court, instead asked to remand the case to the Deputy Director of Education to examine afresh. I could not find it convincing as there is nothing on record to examine except the said chart, which is certainly not worth putting any reliance on it. There is no compelling circumstance to remand the case. 5. I could not find it convincing as there is nothing on record to examine except the said chart, which is certainly not worth putting any reliance on it. There is no compelling circumstance to remand the case. 5. In the case of Andhara State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re i Rolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : "a court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to defend the law from Crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law. " 6. Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabbu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , has observed as under : "it Is responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitu tion to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the same of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. " 7. Filing of forged and fabricated documents in the Court amounts to contempt of Courts. In the case of Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, 1995 (1) SCC 421 :1995 (1) JCLR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as under: "any one who takes recourse to fraud deflect the course of judicial proceedings or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which stake the faith of people in the system of admi nistration of justice. " 8. The same was approved and followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995)3 SCC 775 : 1995 JIC 1108 (SC ). 9. It is settled law that when a person approaches the Court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objectives. 9. It is settled law that when a person approaches the Court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objectives. There is no need to site any authority for this but the reference may be made to the cases of the Ramjas Foundation and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 852 s G. Narainswami Reddy v. Government of Karnataka and others, AIR 1991 SC 1726 and K. R. Srinivas v. R. M. Premchand and others, (1994)6 SCC 620 . 10. In such a case it is not permissible for the Court to take a lenient view. In the case of Gurdeep Singh v. State of J & K and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "we are afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authories, ha. served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery it could be rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very assence of justice But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this hind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself, engender eynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analysis embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that game achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of courts Into private benevalence. This tendency should be stopped. " 11 In view of the above, the Instant petition is devoid of any merit and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief whatsoever. The petition is dis missed accordingly. t2 However, it is clarified that under the impugned order of Deputy Director of Education dated 10-9- 1992 those persons who have been found eligible of salaries under the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 .