JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Special Appeal No. 291 of 2000 arises from the order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2.9.1998 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants on the ground that the same has become infructuous. 3. Special Appeal No. 518 of 1998 arises from the order and judgment dated 2.9.1998 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 32935 of 1994 for the reason that the petitioner-appellants did not disclose the factum of filing of earlier writ petition No. 11562 of 1994, and therefore, was guilty of suppression of material facts. 4. On the request from the Counsels for the parties, both the appeals were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The appellants claimed that they were appointed as Daily Wagers in the year 1989 in (Nagar Panchayat) Town Area Committee, Achalda, District Etawah, as Revenue Clerks and since then they are continuing, but their services have been terminated in the year 1999 without giving any Denefit of regularization in terms of the Government Order dated 11.10.1989. It is also submitted that the Government Order provides that the persons who are working as daily wagers in the local body, had completed three years service, had worked for 240 days, and, are appointed against the existing vacancy are entitled to be regularized. In view of the aforesaid another Government Order dated 8.1.1992 was issued providing that all daily wagers, who had not completed three years service on 11.10.1989, their services shall not be dispensed with but they would be absorbed against the vacancies arising in future. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that as per the aforesaid Government Order dated 8.1.1992 the appellants were not only entitled to continue in service but also entitled for regularisation after completion of three years but the Hon’ble Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition as having become in fructuous and the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered at all. He further submits that the cause of action in the two writ petitions were not identical and therefore, the subsequent writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of suppression of the facts of filing writ petition No. 11526 of 1994. 7. He further submits that the cause of action in the two writ petitions were not identical and therefore, the subsequent writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of suppression of the facts of filing writ petition No. 11526 of 1994. 7. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that neither the appellants were engaged in accordance with law nor they were actually allowed to continue in service by the Town Area committee and the documents relied upon by the appellants were forged and manipulated. Hs also submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, the appellants were continued to be engaged as daily wagers till 16th October 1999 and thereafter they were disengaged. He drew our attention to the report of the Secretary, Town Area Committee, Achalda, district Etawah, wherein it has been stated that the orders of appointments of the appellants, in fact, were not signed by the Chairman and there are some interpolations in the minutes of meeting of the Committee of Management showing that the appointments or continuance of the appellants in service was not valid and genuine. He further submitted that being daily wagers the appellants have no right to claim regularisation since they were engaged as per the casual requirement of the Town Area Committee and having been disengaged, the petitioner-appellants cannot claim any right to continue in service. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The petitioner-appellants as per their own showing were engaged on temporary basis on daily wage basis vide orders dated 25.7.1989, 1.11.1989 and 4.12.1989, (Annexure Nos. 1A to 1D to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application). 10. It appears that there were no sanctioned posts available against which the petitioner-appellants could have been engaged and the Town Area Committee had requested the State Government for creation of the posts but the same were not created. The appellants claimed that on 6.10.1993 the Committee passed a resolution for appointing the petitioner-appellants on temporary basis and also directed for preparation of their service books. It also resolved to provide temporary pay scale to the appellants. Copy of the aforesaid resolution has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The appellants claimed that on 6.10.1993 the Committee passed a resolution for appointing the petitioner-appellants on temporary basis and also directed for preparation of their service books. It also resolved to provide temporary pay scale to the appellants. Copy of the aforesaid resolution has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The appellants claimed that pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the Chairman of the Town Area Committee issued an order dated 11.10.1993 communicating the decision of the Committee for appointment of the appellants on temporary basis w.e.f. 1.11.1993 and also directed them to take steps for preparation of service books etc. The elected Town Area Committee was dissolved on 19.1.1994 and the District Magistrate, Etawah, assumed charge as Administrator thereof. It appears that the Secretary, Town Area Committee, Achalda, submitted report dated 25.2.1994 in respect to the engagement of the daily wagers including the appellants and it is stated therein that although appointments were sought to be made in anticipation of the sanctioned posts and the appointment letters were also available on file but the information of the appointment was not sent to any of the authority concerned. It also stated that in the minutes of meeting of the Committee of Management, signatures of the Secretary was not there and the then Chairman has also prepared a separate attendance register of daily wage employees wherein daily wage employees were marking their attendance. He also stated that the former Chairman has not mentioned that the appointment of such persons on regular basis has been made mentioned in any of the attendance register or other relevant documents. The aforesaid report was forwarded by the Dy. Collector to the District Magistrate recommending that the persons who have been engaged beyond the sanctioned strength, are liable to be disengaged. The aforesaid report was forwarded by the Dy. Collector to the District Magistrate recommending that the persons who have been engaged beyond the sanctioned strength, are liable to be disengaged. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid report, the appellants were disengaged then they approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 11562 of 1994 seeking following relief : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.3.1994 passed by respondent No. 4; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in charge of their duties of the petitioner in the capacity of Tax/Revenue Collection, Clerk and the petitioners may not be removed from their post and given full salary and other benefits due to them; (iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; (iv) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 11. In the aforesaid writ petition, no interim order was passed and only notices were issued. Thereafter, the appellants claiming that they were allowed to function till 27.8.1994 and thereafter they were restrained from signing attendance register or to perform any work, filed second writ petition No. 32935 of 1994 with the following relief : (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to work as permanent regular Revenue Clerk Tahbazari Clerk in Nagar Panchayat, Town Area Committee, Achalda, district Etawah and not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners which is due since July, 1993 within reasonable time as fixed by this Hon’ble Court aid further direct to pay the regular monthly salary to the petitioners in future; (iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper (iv) award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 12. In the second writ petition, the appellants did not admittedly disclose the factum of approaching this Court in the earlier writ petition No. 11562 of 1994. In the second writ petition, the appellants did not admittedly disclose the factum of approaching this Court in the earlier writ petition No. 11562 of 1994. This Court passed the following interim order dated 18.10.1984 : “The petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent No. 2 personally within six weeks. The affidavit of service may be filed in this Court by the next date fixed. The office is directed to hand over necessary notices to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within twenty-four hours fixing a date for admission of the writ petition. The respondent No. 2 is directed to put in appearance and file a counter affidavit by that time. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List it for admission on 1.2.1995. Learned Standing Counsel is also directed to file a counter affidavit within the same period. Until further orders the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and pay him salary month to month in accordance with law provided no order of termination in writing has been passed and serviced upon the petitioner”. 13. Consequently, under the interim order dated 18.10.1994 admittedly, the appellants continued in service till the writ petition No. 32935 of 1994 was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.8.1998. It appeals that after communication of the dismissal of the writ petition and vacation of the interim order, the appellants were disengaged by the respondents on and after 16.10.1999. 14. From a perusal of the relief sought in the two writ petitions, it cannot be stated that the relief sought and the issue raised in the later writ petition was materially dissimilar to the one involved in the earlier writ petition. The petitioners admittedly, did not disclose the factum of filing of earlier writ petition in the later one and therefore are guilty of suppression of material facts. They did not approach this Court with clean hands when filed writ petition No. 32935 of 1994. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in dismissing the aforesaid writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts. 15. A person who invokes discretionary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must approach the Court with clean hands. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in dismissing the aforesaid writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts. 15. A person who invokes discretionary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must approach the Court with clean hands. If he is guilty of making false statements or suppression of material facts or otherwise try to misrepresent before the Court, the discretionary jurisdiction shall not be exorcised in favour of such person even if, it is found that he is otherwise entitled for relief. A person who seeks equity must do equity and come with clean hands. The Apex Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, 2004 (2) SCC 105 has held as under : “A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue.” 16. This bench in Special Appeal No. 894 of 1998 decided on 24.2.2006 in (Bharat Prasad Srivastava and ors v. Direcotor of Education (Higher Education) U.P., Allahabad and others) has also taken a similar view. In the circumstances, we do not find any fault in the judgment dated 2.9.1998 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 32935 of 1994. 17. Now coming to the special appeal No. 291 of 2000 arising out of judgment and special appeal No. 11526 of 1994 the record shows that the Secretary of Town Area Committee submitted a report showing invalidity in the so-called engagements of the petitioner-appellants. The said report recommended for further action and for dispensing the services of all such persons including the appellants since their engagements were beyond the sanctioned number of posts. Nothing has been brought before this Court that the facts stated in the aforesaid report are incorrect. 18. The learned Counsel for the appellants also could not contradict the fact that sanctioned posts were not available. Nothing has been brought before this Court that the facts stated in the aforesaid report are incorrect. 18. The learned Counsel for the appellants also could not contradict the fact that sanctioned posts were not available. The petitioner-appellants thus were engaged without there being any post in existence at all. The appointments in the absence of posts are nullity in the eyes of law. A person cannot claim a right to continue in service in the absence of a sanctioned post. 19. Thus, not only the engagements of the petitioner-appellants is illegal and contrary to law but the facts stated in the report of the Secretary, Town Area Committee, shows that in collusion of the erstwhile Chairman of the Town Area Committee the petitioners managed some letters of engagements although the documents were full of interpolations etc, and even the minutes of meeting of the Committee of Management were found to have some interpolations. Besides, the fact, that the appellants have continued in service since 1994 and onwards on the basis of the interim order obtained in the subsequent writ petition filed by suppression of material facts shows that the petitioner-appellants are not entitled for equitable discretionary relief since they have not approach the Court with clean hands. 20. In the result, we do not find any force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and in our view the Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly dismissed both the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the Special Appeals being without merit are dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. Special Appeals Dismissed. ———