RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. ( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for claiming the following reliefs : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to keep the petitioner in continuous service since December, 1985 and allow him to work and take him as regular and confirmed; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7. 7. 1993 (Annexure-9) passed by respondent No. 1; (c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper to protect the interest of the petitioner; (d) award costs of the petition. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as clerk and joined the service on 4. 9. 1982 in the Revenue Department in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi and worked as such till December, 1985. He alleges that his services were never terminated and he was given work till December, 1985. He had also made representations on 5. 6. 1992 and 18. 6. 1993, but he had not been allowed to work. It is further submitted that thereafter on 20. 2. 1993 the Establishment Clerk had submitted his report to the Office Superintendent that the petitioner had been paid salary from 4. 9. 1982 to December, 1985 and has worked for 240 days in each of the three years w. e. f. 1982 to 1985. It was recommended by the Establishment Clerk that the services of the petitioner should be regularised according to the Government Order No. 4507-A/11-N. P. 4-50/ke/77, dated 6. 7. 1978. ( 4 ) IT appears that the Office Superintendent made a query and sought justification from the establishment Clerk as to why the services of the petitioner be regularised after seven years when he had not worked during the period i. e. , from December, 1985 to February, 1993. On 2. 3. 1993 the Establishment Clerk had also submitted detailed report to the Office Superintendent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner on various grounds including sports activities. In this report he recommended that according to G. O. dated 11. 2. 75 the petitioner should be regularised as he is a good sportsman and had participated in sports activities on behalf of the nigam. In this report he recommended that according to G. O. dated 11. 2. 75 the petitioner should be regularised as he is a good sportsman and had participated in sports activities on behalf of the nigam. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the certain documents which have been filed along with the rejoinder-affidavit of Vinai Kumar Upadhyaya. In all the representations dated 12. 8. 86, 9. 2. 87, 15. 4. 88, 9. 7. 1989 and 18. 6. 1998 alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner, he had made reference of the Government G. O. dated 1. 11. 1989, which provides for regularisation of service of daily wage employee, who had completed 240 days of actual working in three consecutive years. The petitioner in these representations has averred that since he had worked for more than three years and in each year he had completed 240 days, as such according to the G. O. his services should have been regularised. ( 6 ) THE Standing Counsel referring to the date of notification and the date of representations have vehemently argued that the petitioner could not have made representations during the period 12. 8. 86 to 18. 6. 93 making a reference to the G. O. dated 1. 11. 89 for regularisation. On this basis it has been submitted that these documents are forged and fictitious and had been submitted by the petitioner only to explain his absence of seven years after December, 1985, but somehow he has overlooked the discrepancy in the dates. ( 7 ) IT is evident from the record that the petitioner had left the job on his own in the month of november, 1985 and was gainfully employed elsewhere and thereafter the services of Ashok kumar Dubey and Jay Shankar Srivastava, junior to the petitioners were regularised and retained in service. ( 8 ) IN view of the facts stated above, the petitioner is not entitled for any sympathy from this court. He is not in the service of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi since December, 1985. A person like the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court in the aforesaid circumstances. The petitioner has abused the process of this Court. ( 9 ) THE writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. .