SHISHIR KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11,6,1993, Annexure-13 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1 and a writ of mandamus not to interfere in the working of the petitioner on the post of driver. The petitioner was appointed as jeep driver in Class-III to a temporary post on ad hoc basis and the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. Subsequently it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law by following the proper procedure, therefore, a show cause notice was given and a reply to that effect was invited from the petitioner and the same was considered and an order dated 11. 6. 1993 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner only on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was without following the proper procedure and the name of the petitioner was not sponsored from Employment exchange. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court and the writ petition was entertained and an interim order was granted on 17. 8. 1993 and subsequently on an application, the interim order was extended vide its order dated 29. 11. 1993. The petitioner submits that the interim order is still continuing and on the basis of the interim order the petitioner is continuing on his post. ( 2 ) AN argument on behalf of the petitioner has been raised to the effect that in view of annexure-14, U. P. Regularisation of ad-hoc Appointments (On the Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the petitioner was entitled to be considered according to cut-off date mentioned. The petitioner has further placed reliance on the G. O. dated 22. 3. 1984 and 7. 8. 1989 and has placed reliance on Rule 10 of the said Rules. The petitioner submits that as his appointment was prior to 1. 10. 1986 and he was continuing in service on the date of the commencement of the Government Order dated 7. 6. 3. 1984 and 7. 8. 1989 and has placed reliance on Rule 10 of the said Rules. The petitioner submits that as his appointment was prior to 1. 10. 1986 and he was continuing in service on the date of the commencement of the Government Order dated 7. 6. 1989, therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for regularization as the respondents without taking into consideration the relevant Rules, have terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his initial appointment on ad hoc was not in accordance with law. The petitioner further submits that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , (1992) 2 SCC 29 , if a person is working for a considerable time on the basis of the interim order, a sympathetic consideration would be taken and the claim of person concerned, inspite of the fact that the initial appointment is not in accordance with law, may be considered for regularization or may be permitted to continue on the post. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed. It has been stated on behalf of the Standing counsel has as the initial appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law without following the procedure, therefore, after due consideration an order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner and the petitioner has been given full opportunity while passing the order dated 11. 6. 1993. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. The petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of Arun Kumar Raut v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1477 , and in the case of H. C. Kuttaswami v. Honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, AIR 1991 SC 295 . In those cases the Honble Court has taken as analogy that inspite of the fact that the appointment was illegal but since the incumbent had continued in service for along period, on strength of the interim order, allowed them to continue. In those cases the Honble Court has taken as analogy that inspite of the fact that the appointment was illegal but since the incumbent had continued in service for along period, on strength of the interim order, allowed them to continue. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted before this court a judgment in the case of Shesh Mani Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, reported in (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2560, and has placed reliance in Para 15 of the said judgment. The honble Court has said that the petitioner is not entitled for a relief from this Court merely on the ground that an interim order has been passed in his favour under which he continued to receive the salary and has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Dharm Bir, reported in Judgment Today 1998 (4) SC 363, wherein it has been observed as follows : "the plea that the Court should have a "human approach" and should not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for more than a decease also cannot be accepted as the courts are hardly swayed by emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the court not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance the equities so as to do complete justice between them. Thus the Courts always maintain a human approach. In the instant case also, this approach has not been departed from. We are fully conscious that the respondent had worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that a selected candidate who also possesses necessary educational, qualification is available. In this situation, if the respondent is allowed, to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of "human approach", it would be at the cost of a duly selected candidate who would be deprived of employment for which he has striven and had ultimately cleared the selection. In fact, it is the "human approach" which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the requisite qualification. " ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Kishorilal Charmakar and Anr. v. District Education officer and Anr. In fact, it is the "human approach" which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the requisite qualification. " ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Kishorilal Charmakar and Anr. v. District Education officer and Anr. , reported in (1998) 9 SCC 395 , has examined the termination of a person who had been appointed under a bonafide mistake by considering them as a Scheduled Tribe and mistake has not occurred on their account. It was submitted on their behalf that they have served ten years as teachers under the interim order granted by the Court in their favour and since they were not responsible for the mistake, they should be allowed to continue. The Court has rejected this contention holding that this alone could not entitle them to retain undeserved benefit, which has accrued to them. In yet another case the Honble Supreme Court in a matter of State of rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, (1997) 6 SCC 574 , examined the effect of an interim order on the dismissal of the petitioner. In the said case the respondent was not called for interview since he did not possess the technical qualification. However, pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court requiring the appellant to call him for interview, he was interviewed and his name was included in the list of the selected candidates. He was also appointed on a promotional post and was also subsequently confirmed, The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court holding that on the cut-off date he was not having the requisite qualification. It was submitted before the Supreme Court that since he had continued in service and has also been confirmed, the Court could not disturb his appointment and his case should be considered sympathetically. The Honble Supreme Court has observed that the appellant has taken the correct stand right from the beginning and respondents application was not considered and he was not called for interview. It was only on account of the interim orders which the respondents obtained and he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to outcome to the writ petition. As such a sympathetic view could not be taken. It was only on account of the interim orders which the respondents obtained and he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to outcome to the writ petition. As such a sympathetic view could not be taken. ( 7 ) IN the present case also, the initial appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, without following the procedure and the name of the petitioner was not sponsored form the employment Exchange and no Selection Committee was constituted, therefore, I am of view that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief only on the ground that inspite of the fact that this initial appointment was not in accordance with law and was permitted to continue on the post of driver on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. From the perusal of the order dated 11. 6. 1993 it is clear that before passing the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, a show cause notice was given and reply was invited and that was considered by the competent authority and after due consideration as it has been found that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, therefore, the same has been terminated. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order, if any, is hereby discharged. Petition dismissed. . .