A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER graduated from Delhi University and also holds diploma in Typing andshorthand. She applied for the post of Steno-cum-Typist in response to advertisementdated 15. 1. 94 issued by Respondent No. 2, namely, Export Credit Guaranteecorporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent Corporation ). Writtentest and Typing test were conducted on 8. 10. 94. Petitioner undertook the said tests. Thereafter she received letter dated 18. 10. 94 informing her to appear before theinterview Board on 11. 11. 94. List of successful candidates was declared by respondentno. 2 for appointment to the post of Steno-cum-typist. Name of the Petitioner,however, appeared in the waiting list at Serial No. 9 for general categolry candidatefor appointment in Delhi region. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was, however, taken in the employment of respondent-corporationw. e. f. 1. 8. 95 for a period of three months i. e. upto October, 1995. Since parties are atdispute about the circumstances under which the petitioner got the appointment andintimately face termination, it would be better to state the respective versions. ( 3 ) THE petitioner admits that her name appeared in the waiting list. However, shehas averred in the petition that as one Mr. Chandra Mohan selected against permanentpost did not join the duty, petitioner was directed to join the services as Steno-cum-typist w. e. f. 1. 8. 95 against the existing one permanent post and in these circumstancesshe joined the duties against the permanent post. She, however, admits that she wasgiven the appointment for 90 days but was given assurances that her services shallberegularised. The services of the petitioner continued even after 90 days but givingartificial break which was only on paper as by changing the name of the petitionerfrom Sunita to Son. In this way she worked with the respondents upto 30. 7. 97. Due toefficiency shown by her, Regional Office, Delhi even recommended the case of herregularisation vide letters dated 3. 6. 97 and 167. 97. However, on 31. 7. 97 when shewent to the office for their daily duty, she was not allowed to join the duties andaggrieved against this oral order of termination she personally met the respondentsand thereafter submitted representations on 12. 8. 97, 5. 9. 97, 20. 10. 97 to recall theorder of termination. Respondent-Corporation vide, letter dated 16. 6. 97 informed thepetitioner that termination order cannot be withdrawn and her services cannot beregularised. 8. 97, 5. 9. 97, 20. 10. 97 to recall theorder of termination. Respondent-Corporation vide, letter dated 16. 6. 97 informed thepetitioner that termination order cannot be withdrawn and her services cannot beregularised. She again submitted representation dated 16. 10. 97 in response towhich she received letter dated 28. 10. 97 asking her to contact Regional Office atdelhi. However, on contacting Regional Office at Delhi she was given evasive replyand she again submitted representation dated 22. 1. 98. In reply she received letterdated 10. 2. 98 asking her to submit her proof of employment which she did However,she was not taken back in the employment and instead one Sh. Sant Lal, a fresherwas appointed in her Place. In these circumstances, she was constrained to file thepresent writ petition. ( 4 ) ON the other hand as per the version of the respondents, since the petitioner wasranked 9th in the waiting list of general category candidates and as the employmenthad to be offered in order of ranking, the petitioner was never offered employment onthe said permanent posts which had been advertised as her turn to get the appointmentas per the aforesaid rank did not mature at all. However, on coming to know fromdelhi Office of the respondent-corporation that there were some temporary vacanciesof three months duration she approached the concerned Branch Manager andoffered to work in temporary capacity. In these circumstance, she employed ontemporary basis w. e. f. 1. 8. 95 for a period of three months i. e. upto October, 1995. Her appointment had. come to an end by October, 1995. However, petitioner inconnivance with some officers of the Delhi Office of the Corporation wanted heremployment to be extended beyond three months. As the Delhi Regional Office didnot have any authority to extend the employment, with the help of said officers, shetook fresh temporary appointment with the respondent-corporation under fictitiousname for a period of three months, thus seeking to deceive and defraud therespondent-corporation. As the Delhi Regional Office didnot have any authority to extend the employment, with the help of said officers, shetook fresh temporary appointment with the respondent-corporation under fictitiousname for a period of three months, thus seeking to deceive and defraud therespondent-corporation. The Petitioner worked in her name and under assumednames in the following manner: (i) Sunita August 199 5/10/1995 (ii) Snigdha November 199 5/01/1996 (ili) Sunita February 199 6/04/1996 (iv) Shashi May 199 6/07/1996 (v) Sunita August 199 6/10/1996 (vi) Soni November 199 6/01/1997 (vii) Sunita February 199 7/04/1997 (viii) Soni May 199 7/07/1997 ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the respondent-corporation, therefore, the petitioner is guilty ofplaying fraud upon the respondent-corporation in connivance with certain officials ofthe Delhi Office of Respondent-corporation (which may have included the thenregional Manager ). In the month of July, 1997, the Regional Manager, who seems tohave either permitted the petitioner to continue under fictitious and false names ordid notice the said action; went on leave before his retirement from service andanother officer was deputed by the corporation to take charge of the Delhi Office. It issubmitted that it was this officer who detected the fraud being committed by thepetitioner on the corporation and immediately informed the Head Office of thecorporation and the petitioner was cautioned and warned that action will be takenagainst her for impersonation if she did not forthwith cease and desist from suchactions. It is submitted however that no action was taken against the petitioner for herillegal and wrong acts of working under fictitious names as it would have badlyaffected her entire career and on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner, thereafter, ondiscovering that her impersonation had been revealed, stopped coming for work tothe office. It is also submitted that the Corporation did not take any action against theofficer Incharge of the office during the relevant period as he was on the verge ofretirement from service and it may have been difficult to prove his direct involvementin the above deception. It is submitted that as the wrong acts had been put to an endand the parties responsible had been removed from being able to continue the samethe Corporation decided to treat the matter as closed. Letters dated 16. 9. 97,28. 11. 97and 12. 8. 98 referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition are not orders eitherterminating her service or rejecting her representations against the alleged terminationas alleged. Letters dated 16. 9. 97,28. 11. 97and 12. 8. 98 referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition are not orders eitherterminating her service or rejecting her representations against the alleged terminationas alleged. A perusal of said documents would show that by the said letters the Headoffice of the corporation had merely informed the petitioner that there were novacancies in the clerical cadre and in absence of such vacancies her request forappointment to the post of Steno-typist could not be entertained. It was, however,pointed out that in case there was any vacancy at a later time she would be permittedto sit for the competitive exam for selection. Thus the said letters have no relevance tothe present dispute. ( 6 ) IT is also stated by the respondents that the Head Office of the corporation hasnot received any such. alleged tetters dated 3. 6. 97 and 16. 7. 97 from the Regionaloffice, Delhi, recommending her regularisation as alleged and no such letters weresent by the said office as the officers in the said office clearly knew that no suchrecommendations can be made in violation of the prescribed norms tor appointmentof clerical staff. It is submitted that the said letters dated 3. 6. 97 and 16. 7. 97 arenothing but mere fabrications by the petitioner for the purpose of this case. In thecounter-affidavit it has been denied by the respondents that on 31. 7. 97 any person bythe name of Sunita was working in the Delhi Office. It is stated that as the relevantperiod of three months of employment of the person named Soni was coming to anend on 31. 7. 97, the petitioner being aware of her exposure, did not attempt to obtainany further employment with the Corporation. It is submitted that in the facts andcircumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner s services were terminated by anyoral order. Respondent Corporation has also denied that the Corporation hasappointed any Mr. Sant Lal or any one else to the permanent vacancy after the datefrom which the petitioner stopped working under the name of Soni on 31. 7. 97. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the relevantrecords. The claim of the petitioner that one Chandra Mohan did not join the duties and,therefore, she was appointed against permanent vacancy appears to be wrong. 7. 97. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the relevantrecords. The claim of the petitioner that one Chandra Mohan did not join the duties and,therefore, she was appointed against permanent vacancy appears to be wrong. Hadis been so she would have been given permanent employment instead of givingappointment for three months. Admittedly, there is no such letter of appointment. Onthe other hand admittedly she was appointed for a period of three months only andthat is why she had been asking for regularisation. Moreover she has herself producedthe letters of the respondent-corporation to the effect that her request for regularisationcannot be considered in the absence of any permanent vacancy. There were personsabove her in the waiting list who could not get the appointment and, therefore, herclaim that she was appointed against permanent vacancy is clearly false. Admittedly,petitioner was appointed for a period of three months which was expiring inoctober, 1995. Further, even as per the petitioner s admission thereafter she workedby changing her name from Sunita to Soni. The averments have been made byrespondents in the counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that petitioner conspired andmanaged to get the employment and worked after October,1995 under differentnames. The reason is obvious. Delhi Regional Office did not have authority to extendthe employment beyond three months and, therefore, some persons in Delhi Regionaloffice allowed her to continue under fictitious names. Once this is the factual position,the petitioner cannot be entitled to any relief in this petition due to various reasons. ( 8 ) FIRST, she managed to get the extension by working under assumed/ fictitiousnames and therefore, she clearly played a fraud upon the respondents. It is, ofcourse, in connivance with the officers of Delhi Regional Office but she was not onlyparty but beneficiary as well. Thus a person who is guilty of deceiving and defraudingthe respondent-corporation and getting the appointment on that basis cannot begiven the advantage of her own wrong. ( 9 ) SECONDLY, on the basis of written test and interview etc, she could not make hermark and cannot be appointed on regular basis as Steno-cum-typist. Her nameappeared only in the waiting list and her turn for appointment did not mature. ( 9 ) SECONDLY, on the basis of written test and interview etc, she could not make hermark and cannot be appointed on regular basis as Steno-cum-typist. Her nameappeared only in the waiting list and her turn for appointment did not mature. Acceding to the prayer of the petitioner to reinstate and regularise her in servicewould amount to giving her appointment eve when she has not been successful ingetting the same on the basis of written test ant interview. This is clearly not permissible. ( 10 ) THIRDLY, even for working on ad hoc basis under the assumed names for theperiod mentioned by her, she cannot get any advantage as Delhi Regional Officewas not authorised to extend the employment. For this purpose, respondent/corporationhas even produced the relevant recruitment rules. Rule-9 stipulates the authority isempowered to appoint and it mentions that in the case of Class-111, the appointingauthority is General Manager. Thus any appointment by Regional Manager in Delhiregional Office was without any authorisation and it would not confer any right uponthe petitioner. ( 11 ) FOURTHLY, insofar as temporary appointment is concerned, it has been stated inrule-8 that temporary appointment in no case shall be for more than six months at atime that too when general or specific directions are issued by Chairman and Managing Director in this respect from time to time. Rule 8 (3) further stipulates thatno person of such temporary appointment shall be entitled to absorption. It reads asunder: "no person appointed under sub-regulation (1) above shall by reason ofsuch appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of the Corporationor claim preference for recruitment to any post". ( 12 ) IT had been repeatedly emphasised by the Courts that when there are recruitmentrules for appointment of personnel to various posts, the Government Authorities/undertaking are supposed to make appointment strictly after following these rulesand back door entries are not permitted. ( 13 ) MR. Sarvesh Bisharia, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that thepetitioner having worked for more than 240 days, her oral termination without followingthe mandatory provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act is void abinitio and, therefore, she was entitled to reinstatement with back wages and insupport of his submissions, he cited the judgment of Apex Court in the case ofmanagement of MCD Vs. Prem Chand Gupta and Anr. 1999 (7) Scale 526 . Prem Chand Gupta and Anr. 1999 (7) Scale 526 . He alsocontended that once petitioner had worked for more than 240 days she was entitledto regularisation and in support of this submission reliance is placed upon thejudgment in the case of Secretary H. S. E. B. Vs. Suresh and Ors. etc. etc. 1999 (2) scale 315 . At the outset it may be stated that no such plea is taken in the writ petitionfiled by the petitioner and such a plea was orally advanced. In any case, when thepetitioner has worked beyond three months unauthorisedly, without any properpermission from the competent authority at Head Office as Delhi Office had no poweror authority to extend the period of temporary appointment and when such extensionis the result of fraud by working under fictitious names, petitioner cannot be allowedto plead non-observance of formalities prescribed under section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, namely, issuing of notice or giving notice, pay and retrenchmentcompensation. Such provisions are not available for those who obtained or continuedin the employment by adopting fraudulent means and completing 240 days in process. Not only this even on facts the provisions of Section 25f are not applicable inasmuchas even under assumed names the petitioner s engagement was coming to end on31. 7. 97 and it is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that when the petitionerdiscovered that her impersonation had been revealed, she stopped coming for workto the office and did not seek any further extension. May be she was apprehensivethat action would be taken against her by the respondent corporation once thisimpersonation is detected. Therefore, it is not a case of termination of her servicesby the respondent-corporation and for this reason also provisions of Section 25f arenot applicable. As far as judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,hseb (supra) is concerned, it was a case under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 where on facts the Labour Court returnedthe findings by statingthat the work was of perennial nature and the contract was sham and camouflage. This judgment has not application in the present case. On the other hand there arenumber of judgments of Supreme Court to the effect that merely because a personhas worked on casual basis for 240 days would not entitle him/her to be regularisedin job de-hors the Recruitment Rules (Ref: Delhi Development Horticultureemployees Union Vs. Delhi Admn. This judgment has not application in the present case. On the other hand there arenumber of judgments of Supreme Court to the effect that merely because a personhas worked on casual basis for 240 days would not entitle him/her to be regularisedin job de-hors the Recruitment Rules (Ref: Delhi Development Horticultureemployees Union Vs. Delhi Admn. 1992 (4) SCC 99 ; Director, Institute ofmanagement Development. U. P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava JT 1992 (4) SC489; J and K Public Service Commission and Others Vs. Dr. Narender Mohanand Others (1994) 2 SCC 630 . ( 14 ) IT was lastly contended by the petitioner s counsel that after terminating herservices, one Shri Sant Lal was taken in employment in her place and, therefore, thisaction of the respondent-corporation was illegal and contrary to dicta laid down bythe Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others etc. etc. Vs. Piarasingh and Others etc. etc. , AIR 1992 SC 2130 wherein Supreme Court has heldthat one ad hoc daily wage employee should not be replaced by another daily wageemployee. This authority also would not come to the aid of the petitioner whocontinued to work after initial appointment of three months fraudulently and underassumed names. Further even this contention is based on factually wrong hyphotesisinasurnch as it is specifically denied by the respondent-corporation that it had notappointed any Sant Lal or anyone else after the date when the petitioner stoppedworking under the name of Soni on 31. 7. 97. During the course of arguments, Mr. Bharat Sangal, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation produced the originalrecord to show that there was only one Sant Lal who worked as Chaprasi-cum-peon. IN view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition fails and is, accordingly,dismissed.