D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Govind Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned standing counsel of the State of u. P. , representing the respondents. ( 2 ) SRI Ram Avadh Prasad, asserting to have been appointed as washerman in the upgraded primary Health Centre, Kasia, district Deoria, approached the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. II, Lucknow. the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the Tribunal) praying for direction, to the opposite parties for payment to him salary for the period between May, 1982 and August, 1983, and from January, 1984, onwards. He also prayed for declaration of continuity of service with consequential benefits. ( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioner was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio in as much as it was made by an authority which was not competent, and the appointment was against a non-existent post. ( 4 ) AFTER thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and material produced by them before it, the Tribunal by the impugned detailed and well reasoned judgment and order held that, indeed, the alleged appointment of the petitioner on the post of washerman was not made by competent authority, and it was against a nonexistent post. ( 5 ) THE twin findings of fact in relation to lack of competence of the authority who made the alleged appointment and non-existence of the post is founded on the relevant Government orders and the material noticed and relied upon in the judgment. ( 6 ) BEFORE this Court, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. The findings of fact being based on relevant material are not open to challenge before this Court in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) IN backdrop of the facts that the appointment of the petitioner was made by an authority which lacked competence, and that the post on which appointment was made itself did not exist at the time of appointment, the Tribunal has rightly held that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio. ( 7 ) IN backdrop of the facts that the appointment of the petitioner was made by an authority which lacked competence, and that the post on which appointment was made itself did not exist at the time of appointment, the Tribunal has rightly held that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio. It is well-settled that void appointment cannot bestow upon the appointee any legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right. The appointment of the petitioner being void ab initio, no benefit could ensue in his favour, and his claim has been rightly turned down by the tribunal. ( 8 ) ALL told, the petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. .