A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) IN Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27220 of 2000, the petitioner was given an assignment (and not appointment in strict legal sense) on a fixed honorarium. i. e. , on an absolutely stop-gap day-to-day arrangement on fixed amount (since no regular appointment could be made without following due process of law prescribed under U. P. Higher Education Services Commission which was bound to consume some time and thereby affecting education in the concerned institutions) vide Government Order dated 7. 4. 1998 (Annexurc-1 to the writ petition ). ( 2 ) THE Government Order dated 7th April, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) categorically mentions that : subject to possessing minimum qualification prescribed by University Grant commission, a candidate is allowed to teach by giving Rs. 100 per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs. 5. 000 per month provided he gives a declaration/undertaking on oath on stamp paper--subject to the condition that capability of an available candidate is assessed (without holding interview) as per quality point marks on the basis of academic record on and as such a person shall walk out immediately on regular selectee being available or by 30th June. The process is to be repeated for each new academic session. Relevant paras of the Government order dated 7th April. 1998 are paras 1, 3, 10 and 11, Directors approval dated 27th October. 1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) also reiterates the same. It refers to its earlier letter dated 21st May, 1998. Appointment letter dated 28th October, 1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition)again re-asserts the above. It may be recalled that appointment letter was issued with reference to managers earlier letter dated 11th September, 1998, but its copy has not been filed by the petitioner to enable the Court to have complete picture of the situation in which honorarium appointment was made. ( 3 ) THIS Court takes notice of the Directors letter dated 21st May, 1998 (referred to in Directors letter of approval in favour of Petitioner dated 27th October, 1998--Writ Annexure-2) found in the record of another writ petition. ( 4 ) IN this letter of 21st May, 1998, procedure for making honorarium appointment has been given. Apart from others, it contains, as its appendix, a proforma of agreement (Anubandh) and format of appointment letter. ( 4 ) IN this letter of 21st May, 1998, procedure for making honorarium appointment has been given. Apart from others, it contains, as its appendix, a proforma of agreement (Anubandh) and format of appointment letter. These documents show that a candidate had to give declaration/undertaking on oath not to claim any right against said assignment on regular selectee being available or after 30th June, whichever may be earlier. Photostat copy of directors letter dated 21st May, 1998, is being kept on record-- (total six pages ). ( 5 ) THERE is no statement in the petition that petitioners alleged appointment on honorarium was subject to the condition that it shall cease immediately on a regular selectee/appointee being available from the U. P. Higher Education Service (hereinafter called the Commission ). ( 6 ) WHY the petitioner should conceal it? Paras 5 to 9 of writ petition be perused for this purpose. ( 7 ) THE Courts have time and again deprecated ad hoc appointments and emphasised upon regular appointments. ( 8 ) THE petitioner was called upon to give lectures at the rate of Rs. 100 per lecture (subject to maximum of Rs. 5,000 in a month) stands on much inferior footing as compared to an ad hoc appointee in a regular pay scale after facing ad hoc selection committee with one expert and/or facing interview apart from academic record only under concerned University Statute. ( 9 ) REGULAR appointees are chosen and recommended by the Commission being the best amongst from the then available candidates on the basis of their academic record and performance in interview assessed objectively by a selection Committee consisting of the required members of experts of the subject depending upon cadre to which a post belongs. ( 10 ) THE challenge in the petition is on the allegations pointing out defect/illegality in the rules and procedure adopted by the Commission for selecting candidates. ( 11 ) THERE is no averment in the petition that petitioner had applied against the advertisement by the Commission for regular selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to state whether petitioner had applied against advertisement issued by the Commission. ( 12 ) THERE are two possibilities--namely, if the petitioner had applied, he ought to have raised his grievance at the first opportunity, i. e. . before the interview was held. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to state whether petitioner had applied against advertisement issued by the Commission. ( 12 ) THERE are two possibilities--namely, if the petitioner had applied, he ought to have raised his grievance at the first opportunity, i. e. . before the interview was held. There is no averment that he was unable to do so. Delay defeats equity if situation changes and a right accrues in favour of others (namely selected candidates)--See (1992) 2 LIC 1602--Dr. B. S. Chauhan. J) and (1999) 4 scc 450 . ( 13 ) IF the petitioner did not care to apply against the advertisement, he has nothing to do with the commission and its procedure since he indicated no desire to seek regular selection after facing selection committee constituted by the Commission. ( 14 ) THE petitioners alleged appointment in the College was conditional and his continuation in the institution for taking classes is co-terminus with the end of academic session, i. e. , 30th June or earlier depending upon availability of a regular selectee from the Commission. No promise or assurance of employment can be read in the alleged engagement letter Writ Annexure-3), approval by the Director (Writ Annexure-2) in favour of the petitioner, which were with reference to Government Order dated 7th April, 1998 (Writ Annexure-1) and Directors letters dated 21st May. 1998 (referred to above ). For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. One cannot read any such assurance or representation/assurance or hope in any of the documents. The petitioner is now estopped from challenging the process adopted by Commission in making regular selection while others have changed their position by petitioners own inaction. ( 15 ) THE petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection process if he did not apply to the commission in pursuance to its advertisement. He ought to have agitated the matter as soon as the advertisement was made. Admittedly, it has not been done on the first opportunity and no good reason has been disclosed to the Court for said inaction. He ought to have agitated the matter as soon as the advertisement was made. Admittedly, it has not been done on the first opportunity and no good reason has been disclosed to the Court for said inaction. ( 16 ) SELECTION process by the Commission, as per its Rules, cannot be permitted to be challenged by the petitioner who has allowed the Commission to go ahead, select candidates in pursuance of its Advertisement and the Commission and the candidates--who had applied to the commission have now changed their position to their detriment. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by Selection Commission as he did not even apply against advertisement by the commission. In fact, writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. ( 17 ) THE petitioner cannot be permitted to change his position after the Commission has made selection and keep the selected candidates at bay and watch the development and Court proceeding from the fence as they may not be aware and also not interested as selected list may not have been declared in a given case. Petitioner, admittedly, did not raise a finger or pointed out defect to the State Government/the Commission or otherwise the State Government/ commission may have, if convinced, removed the alleged defects and not undertaken the exercise of selection in the process on being highlighted by the petitioner. No objection being taken at the earliest, Petitioner cannot be allowed to turn around and raise objection taking all concerned by surprise. ( 18 ) HONORARIUM assignees have no right in law or otherwise after giving undertaking as per paras 1, 3 and 10 and Government Order dated 7th April, 1998, writ Annexure-1 pp. 19 and 21, directors approval letter dated 27th October 1998-Paras 2, 3 and 4 writ Annexure-2-PP. 25 and 26, Managers Appointment letter dated 28th October, 1998 writ Annexure-3 declaring that he shall make no claim on regular appointee being available and abide by conditions of Government order dated 7th April, 1998. ( 19 ) ONE will appreciate that process of selection, howsoever defective, so long there is no allegation of manipulation, is much better than the process adopted in a case of assignment on honorarium basis exclusively on the basis of academic record and without interview by Selection committee with experts. ( 19 ) ONE will appreciate that process of selection, howsoever defective, so long there is no allegation of manipulation, is much better than the process adopted in a case of assignment on honorarium basis exclusively on the basis of academic record and without interview by Selection committee with experts. ( 20 ) IT will also be useful to recall a few decisions by the Courts wherein ratio decidendi laid down is to the effect that Courts should be slow to interfere with the decision of Expert Bodies and in the matters of Educational Institutions. Reference may be made to (1997) 3 SCC 124 ; 1997 (5) SCC 53 and 60 ; (1997) 4 SCC 575 ; 1981 Edu. Cases 359 (DB) and (1998) 34 ALR 740. ( 21 ) ASSIGNMENT on honorarium, if continued, like ad hoc/stop gap arrangements in the past, it is going to prove itself another device to seek entry from back door depriving better candidates to seek regular appointment. It will, in effect, deprive many others, who may not like to take up a stop-gap assignment on fixed emoluments and wait in sanguine hope of availing opportunity to seek regular appointment with security and certainty. ( 22 ) IT is in general public interest as well as the students and the institutions in particular that the best available candidates (who are at present the candidates selected by the Commission), should be allowed to join the institutions. ( 23 ) THE compassions, sympathies and equities cannot be allowed to fly over and frustrate regular appointments. Honorarium appointees, like the petitioner, can be allowed in the institution only so long as it does not infringe the rights and interest of others, namely regular appointees. ( 24 ) IN that situation Court must not exercise its equitable extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction. In fact, petitioner has no case in view of the above to continue after 30th June, 2000. ( 25 ) HIS earlier Writ Petition No. 79404 of 1999 is pending as it is not listed/heard In spite of order of the Bench and now rendered infructuous on regular selectee being recommended and available. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel referred to several orders, some of which are prior to 7th April, 1998, i. e. , issuance of relevant Government order which is the basis of the claim of the present petitioner. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel referred to several orders, some of which are prior to 7th April, 1998, i. e. , issuance of relevant Government order which is the basis of the claim of the present petitioner. There is no averment that in those cases similar conditions existed. Petitioner has deliberately concealed that he had complied or not with the conditions contained in Government Order dated 7th April, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) approval dated 27th October, 1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), Assignment letter dated 28th October, 1998 issued by the principal of the College (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). Orders passed by the Benches of this court in other petitions in the past cannot be treated as binding precedent in the above circumstances as there is no adjudication of any issue on merit after recording reasons and these were merely by ad interim measure in a different situation. ( 27 ) BY passing interim orders restraining regular selectee, Court will not encourage stop-gap arrangements. On the other hand, Court will unconsciously, by granting interim orders, which could be granted only if the petition is finally allowed, shall discourage regular selectee to wait and encourage to join elsewhere--because of matter being sub judice. Why a good and brilliant teacher go for litigation and stake his claim for a job without security and certainty. interim order, if issued, will hang like a Damocoels sword. ( 28 ) COURTS should not be tempted to pass order keeping regularly selected candidates in a fix and thereby give an advantage/or upper edge to the petitioner for gaining time to mature or harness their rights by making claims before State Government on so many considerations, other than merit, for regularisation. ( 29 ) BE that as it may a Court cannot place a regularly selected candidate in original position if interim order was not passed, in the eventuality of petition being dismissed after several years. No one can be reasonably expected to wait indefinitely when he cannot be compensated for loss of salary and seniority for the period he is prevented to join by virtue of Courts interim order. ( 30 ) COURTS should not give better deal to the one (Petitioner) by its Intervention and thus non-suit regular selectees. Equity must follow law and to the extent ft does not Infringe upon others right. ( 30 ) COURTS should not give better deal to the one (Petitioner) by its Intervention and thus non-suit regular selectees. Equity must follow law and to the extent ft does not Infringe upon others right. Petitioner has not been vigilant and thus there is no equity either in his favour. ( 31 ) SINCE the assignment of the petitioner was purely by way of stop gap arrangement on a fixed honorarium on an unequivocal undertaking/declaration ; he also had opportunity to undergo process of regular selection held by the Commission--but he chose to keep off, and that process for selection by the Commission was initiated without delay in the year 1998 itself, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition at this belated stage. ( 32 ) IN my opinion honorarium appointees have no prima facie case in the facts of the present case. ( 33 ) CONSIDERING all the aspects with reference to general interest of Education/academic institution, it is also not a fit case for interference under Article 226, Constitution of India. Moreover, present petitioner is guilty of non-disclosure of relevant and material fact, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. This Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India in view of the fact that he has not approached the Court with clean hands (see 1951 All 746 (FB), a view consistently upheld in several decisions of the Courts. ( 34 ) IT may also be noted that this very petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 39404 of 1999 claiming a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent (same as in the present petition) not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as ad hoc teacher till the regularly selected incumbent by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (called the commission) joins the college - when the written statement working on fixed honorarium as stop gap arrangement. The grievance in the earlier petition of Dr. Sanjai Kumar Singh (present petitioner), who was engaged under Government Order dated 7th April, 1998, was to the extent that he should be allowed to continue till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission was available. ( 35 ) THERE Is no grievance in the said Writ Petition No. 39404 of 1999, record of which was summoned from the Registry and perused, that he should be continued beyond 30th June. ( 35 ) THERE Is no grievance in the said Writ Petition No. 39404 of 1999, record of which was summoned from the Registry and perused, that he should be continued beyond 30th June. Petitioner has no right to continue after the Commission has recommended regular selectee. In view of the above, petitioner is estopped In law and cannot be permitted to challenge the selection of the Commission/or beyond 30th June as an afterthought. In this petition, petitioner has assailed the condition of making fresh honorarium assignments for next academic session. Perusal of Para 22 read with Annexure-7 to the writ petition and para 22 gives an incomplete and disputed picture. Curiously there is no mention anywhere in the writ petition as to what happened on 5th May, 2000 when the delegation of the honorarium teachers was supposed to meet the representative of the Government. Information on this aspect has been conveniently withheld. Obviously order was obtained from the Division Bench by concealing relevant and material fact. ( 36 ) AGAIN Annexure-8 to the writ petition to the said writ petition refers to an order passed dated 19th May, 1999, disposing Writ Petition No. 20830 of 1999. Dr Shiuanand and another v. State of U. P. and others, disposing the petition in limine. From the averments in the present petition (writ para 23), it is not clear as to whether Dr. V. K. Srivastava (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21319 of 2000) has made claim in his petition as an honorarium appointee for continuing until a regularly selectee was available irrespective of 30th June, cut off date or he had claimed continuance on the basis of his substantive appointment. ( 37 ) I called for the original record of Writ Petition No. 21319 of 2000 and perused the same. ( 38 ) ANNEXURE-5 to the said petition is Directors letter dated 20th April, 2000 addressed to the secretary/authorised Controller of Jagdishpur Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi, intimating that the Commission has recommended one Ravindra Kumar Slngh. ( 37 ) I called for the original record of Writ Petition No. 21319 of 2000 and perused the same. ( 38 ) ANNEXURE-5 to the said petition is Directors letter dated 20th April, 2000 addressed to the secretary/authorised Controller of Jagdishpur Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi, intimating that the Commission has recommended one Ravindra Kumar Slngh. One can notice that copy of the government Order dated 7th April, 1998, was not annexed with the said petition for perusal of the Court and it was conveniently withheld and concealed from the Court and thus prevented the court from noticing its contents, e. g. , a honorarium appointment was subject to the condition of giving an undertaking/declaration to vacate the post immediately on a regularly selected candidate being available. The Division Bench, at the admission stage passed an interim order dated 5th May, 2000 (referred to In Para 23 to the abovementloned first petition and annexed as annexure-8 to the said petition. Writ petition of Dr. V. K. Srivastava has been directed to be listed in the week commencing 10th July, 2000. As mentioned above, an interim order obtained by concealing material Government Order cannot be followed on the principle of parity. ( 39 ) IT is evident that the said petitioner and others have not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as they have concealed matertal facts, viz. , they were required to and have actually given an undertaking/declaration on oath on stamp paper for not making any claim for regular appointment or on end of academic session ending on 30th June, and walk out immediately on a regularly selected candidate by the Commission being available. ( 40 ) THE petitioner has conveniently ignored to file a copy of the format in which his appointment letter was to be Issued, (see Annexure-2 to the petition Para 2--p. 25 ). ( 41 ) THE present petitioner as well as the petitioners in the above referred other petitions have withheld as to whether they had filed affidavit on stamp paper as required under Para 3 of the government Order dated 7th April, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the present writ petition--p. 20 ). Apparently, all the honorarium appointees were required to file undertaking/declaration for making no claim for regular appointment vis-a-vis regularly selected candidate by the commission being available or after 30th June--when new honorarium assignment is to be made. Apparently, all the honorarium appointees were required to file undertaking/declaration for making no claim for regular appointment vis-a-vis regularly selected candidate by the commission being available or after 30th June--when new honorarium assignment is to be made. There is a clear and well-conceived attempt to misrepresent facts by concealing relevant material and thereby mislead the Court. ( 42 ) THE concerned education authorities required management of a Post-graduate Government aided institution affiliated to a State University to obtain an affidavit on stamp in view of Para 3 of the Government Order dated 7th April. 1998. Copy of letter dated 21st May, 1998, sent by director of Higher Education. U. P. to Government aided post-graduate institutions referred to above shows that format of application, appointment and declaration (Anubandh) were enclosed. Petitioners have not filed copies of the above formats/documents with the petition as perusal of these documents would have clearly exposed that honorarium appointee was required to give a declaration that he shall get himself automatically relieved on 30th June or earlier in case of a duly selected candidate by the Commission being available and that he shall make no claim in this respect. Such persons, like the petitioner, cannot be permitted to resile from his undertaking without establishing necessary facts necessary for withdrawing an admission. There is no foundation for such a withdrawal in the petition. ( 43 ) IN view of the above, petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 44 ) IN view of what has been stated above earlier Writ Petition No. 39404 of 1999 having been filed by Dr Sanjai Kumar Singh has become infructuous. This fact may be brought to the notice of the Bench when said writ petition is listed. Copy of this judgment shall be kept on the record of Writ Petition No. 39404 of 1999, Dr. Sanjal Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and others. ( 45 ) FOR the reasons given above, the above writ petition. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27220 of 2000 including all other above referred writ petitions fail and dismissed ( 46 ) NO orders as to costs.