JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of termination dated 3.7.95 (Annex. 11), the appellate order dated 3.7.2000 (Annx. 26) and the order of communication dated 10.7.2000 (Annex. 25). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk temporarily by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur under the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (for short, "the Rules, 1986") vide order dated 7.4.94 (Annx. 1) for a period of three months only. His services were extended from time to time up to 6.4.95. For regularisation petitioner was required to pass the test for regularisation in view of the letters of the Registrar of this Court dated 9.8.91 and 26.10.91 (Annx. 2 & 3). It appears from the letter dated 7.4.95 issued by the Registrar of this Court that petitioner had to appear in the competitive examination within a period of three months, failing which his services would come to an end automatically. Vide order dated 21.4.95 (Annx. 8), the learned District Judge extended the services of the petitioner for a period of three months so that he may appear in the aforesaid test. Meanwhile, petitioner, instead of appearing in the test, made an application dated 3.4.95 (Annx. 6) that his services should be transferred to the High Court. The learned District Judge, vide letter dated 15.5.95, informed the High Court that a competitive written examination was to be arranged under the direction dated 17.4.95 for three ad hoc appointees including the petitioner but they refused to appear in the examination and, thus, the test was not held. He also pointed out that there was no vacancy available in Jodhpur Judgeship. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of termination dated 3.7.95 and during the pendency of said appeal, he filed S.B.C.W.P. No. 3907/1996, which was dismissed by this Court by a speaking and reasoned order dated 13.5.97 (Annx. 18). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred D.B.C.S.A. No. 1266/1997, wherein, at the time of hearing, it was pointed out that his statutory appeal was still pending arid, thus, appellant-petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition itself. Vide judgment and order dated 25.8.98, he was allowed to withdraw the writ petition and per sue the remedy in the statutory appeal. Vide judgment and order dated 25.8.98, he was allowed to withdraw the writ petition and per sue the remedy in the statutory appeal. Petitioner's appeal was heard by giving an opportunity of hearing to his nominee and the same was dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2000 (Annx. 26). Hence this petition. 3. Petitioner had been appointed initially under rule 23 of the Rules, 1986 on temporary basis for the reason that regular appointments could not be made. He was holding a tenure post and that period was extended from time to time. Firstly, the sanctity of the orders issued by the Registrar of this Court to hold the screening test seem to be doubtful, but as the petitioner did rot face the test, he cannot be entitled for any relief whatsoever. Petitioner had unnecessarily kept this Court busy in deciding his frivolous petitions as explained above. The appointment letter dated 7.4.94 itself maked it clear that his services could be regularised only and only after taking up competitive examination to be held for Lower Division Clerks. In case of non-regular appointee, his services are to be governed by the terms of the appointment letter and there is no reason not to enforce the same. (Vide Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 1593 ). 4. In the instant case, as the petitioner's regularisation was subject to passing the test and he never passed the test, he cannot raise any grievance whatsoever. Petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. He was fully aware of the terms and conditions incorporated in his appointment letter and if he did not choose to appear in the test, the question of considering his case for regularisation did not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision which requires the regularisation of ad hoc appointee within such a short span of time. The law of regularisation is well settled. Either it should be by the statutory rules providing for screening of persons continuing in service for the minimum stipulated period mentioned therein or the service of the temporary employee had been of such a long period that his continuation as temporary employee becomes arbitrary and the case falls within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the instant case, none of these two special features existed. In the instant case, none of these two special features existed. His discontinuation from service cannot be held suffering from any error. 5. Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition allowed. *******