B. S. CHAUHAN, J. The instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26733 of 1995. 2. The facts of the case as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that an advertisement was made by the respon dent No. 3, the Manager of the institution on 8. 7. 85 in local newspaper advertising the three vacancies in Class IV The appellants had applied in pursuance of the said adver tisement and an interview was held on 19. 9. 85 and three said appellants were ap pointed on the same date, Annexure 1 to the special appeal. The said appointments were duly approved by the Additional District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 25. 9. 1985, Annexure 2 to the special and the appellants were allowed to work and they were paid their salaries upto February, 1991. The institution was given the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme in the year 1992 and as the respondent No. 3 wanted to appoint his own men in place of the appellants, they had been restrained from working. The ser vices of the appellants have never been ter minated nor any notice was ever served upon them. As the dispute arose between the parties, the appellants made a repre sentation before the respondent No. 1 and as the same had not been disposed of by the respondent No. 1 expeditiously the appel lants filed a writ petition No. 4352 of 1995 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 22. 2. 1995 directing the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the said representations of the appellants. 3. In pursuance of the order of this Court the respondent No. 1 considered the representation of the appellants and rejected the same vide order dated 3. 7. 1995, Annexure 5 to the special appeal. At the time of deciding the representation the respondent No. 1 had given opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The respondent No. 3, the Manager of the in stitution made the averments before the respondent No. 1 that the documents filed by the appellants including the appointment letters were forged and fabricated documents. The appellants have never been appointed nor they had worked in the in stitution. The respondent No. 3, the Manager of the in stitution made the averments before the respondent No. 1 that the documents filed by the appellants including the appointment letters were forged and fabricated documents. The appellants have never been appointed nor they had worked in the in stitution. The Principal, respondent No. 4 has categorically stated in her deposition in writing that she had been working in the institution since 1985 as a Principal and the appellants had never worked in the said institution. The respondent No. 1 after con sidering the entire evidence and depositions of the appellants as well as of respondents No. 3 and 4 rejected the claim of the appel lants. However, the respondent No. 1 has recorded the following findings of facts which go to the root of the cause and are very relevant for deciding this special ap peal. (1) The appellants No. 1,2 and 3 were below the age of 18 years at the time of appointment even if the alleged appointment letters were genuine one as their date of birth had been 1. 2. 68, 13. 7. 69 and 28. 9. 69 respectively and on the date of appointment, i. e. 19. 9. 85 their respective ages come to 17 years 7 months, 16 years 1 month and 18 days and 16years 7 days. (2) The appellants had filed forged and fabricated photo copies of the alleged appoint ment letters as in one of the copies instead of name of the appellant No. 3, the name of Shri Sriniwas Sharma has been mentioned, Annexure 4 to the C. A. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants preferred Writ Petition No. 26733 of 1995 before this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition the present appel lants have specifically admitted that they were below 18 years of age as in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the appellants had accepted this findings rather than challeng ing it. The learned Single Judge after con sidering the arguments of the appellants and the respondents held that as there had been disputed question of fact, genuineness and veracity of the appointment letters etc is under challenge, the present appellants may file a civil suit. Hence this special appeal. 5. Heard Sri A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. N. Rai and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 6. Hence this special appeal. 5. Heard Sri A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. N. Rai and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 6. As the appellants do not dispute that they were under 18 years of the age on the date of appointments and there is a statutory bar as provided under Rule 6 of the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) Appointment and Service Conditions of the Ministerial and Inferior Staff Rules, 1984 which expressly provides that a person shall be eligible for considera tion for the post of Class IV provided he attains the age of 18 years on first July of the year in which the vacancy is notified. Moreover, Rule 5 of the said Rules embar goes the appointment of any person who is not eligible under these Rules. 7. In Dr. S. K. Kacker v. All India In stitute of Medical Science and others, 1996 (8) J. T 513: 1997 (1) LBESR 220 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that any appoint ment inconsistent with the statutory rules have to be ignored and no appointment can be made dehor the rules. 8. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Ravindra Sharma v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 (1) SCC 138 , the Supreme Court held that if a person does not possess the requisite qualification his appointment is avoid, even though the person who sought such employment has never made any mis representation or played any kind of fraud. 9. Thus, even if there had been no mis representation of their ages by the appellants at the time of appointments, their ap pointments were illegal as none of them were eligible to be considered for the said post. 10. On the issue of filing the forged and fabricated documents, i. e. two different appointments letters. IB one of them the name of appellant No. 3 has been mentioned while in the other the name of Shri Sriniwas Sharma has been mentioned. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that as the name of the two appellants are common in both the appointments letters, the said appointments letters may be treated as genuine at least in respect of the appellants No. 1 and 2. We are afraid, the submission has no leg to stand. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that as the name of the two appellants are common in both the appointments letters, the said appointments letters may be treated as genuine at least in respect of the appellants No. 1 and 2. We are afraid, the submission has no leg to stand. Once the veracity of the documents become doubtful it is never safe to place any reliance upon it whatsoever. As the presence appellants had been party in forging the documents and filing the same before the competent authority, this Court can have no sympathy with them. 12. In S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "the Courts of law arc meant of imparting of justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous person from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient Sever to retain the illegal- gains indefinitely. We have no hesita tion to say that a person whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. " 13. In Andhra Estate Financial Cor poration v. Gar Re: Rolling Mills 1994 (2) SCC 647 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "a court of equity, when exercising its equilable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, must so act as to prevent per petration of a legal fraud and the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as its lies within their power. Equity is always known to prevent toe law from crafty evasions and subleties invented to evade law. " 14. Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Prahhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "it is responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the so cial balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. " 15. Thus, in view of the above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed 16. " 15. Thus, in view of the above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed 16. However, it is clarified that the order of the learned Single Judge giving liberty to the appellants to file a civil suit is modified as we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition should have been dismissed only on the ground that none of the appellants was eligible even for applying for the post being under age at the relevant time. Hence, we dismissed the writ petition also. Appeal and Petition dismissed. .