Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 4.11.1994 and for a direction to regularize his service as Forester-I against the post held by him in terms of order dated 29.10.1994. 3. Facts of the case as projected in the writ petition may be briefly noted. Petitioner was appointed in September, 1990 as Typist in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar (respondent No. 3). Thereafter, on 2.12.1991, he was appointed as LDA on temporary basis. 4. By notice dated 10.6.1994, petitioner was called for interview in the office of respondent No. 3 scheduled on 7.7.1994 for the post of Forester-I. Petitioner appeared in the interview and was selected. By order dated 29.10.1994 issued by Chief Conservator of Forests, (H.Q.), Assam, petitioner was appointed temporarily as Forester-I in the Waste Land Development Project. 5. However, petitioner was not allowed to join on the ground that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam had issued order on 4.11.1994 that those persons recently appointed by the Chief Conservator Forests (H.Q.) should not be allowed to join under any circumstances. 6. Petitioner submitted representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to regularize his appointment as Forester-I. But respondent No. 3 instead issued order dated 8.2.1995 temporarily appointing the petitioner to officiate as Forester-I for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 1.2.1995. 7. At that stage, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 8. This court by order dated 10.3.1995, admitted the writ petition and as an interim measure, directed that petitioner should not be disturbed from his service. 9. Ultimately, case was taken up for hearing on 19.2.2002. As the respondents did not file counter affidavit contesting the proceeding, a Single Bench of this court proceeded to hear the matter by treating the averments made in the writ petition as uncontroverted and correct. The Single Bench quashed the order dated 4.11.1994 and also the order dated 8.2.1995 to the extent of appointing the petitioner on temporary basis. It was directed that petitioner's appointment on 29.10.1994 be maintained and he should be treated to have been appointed on regular basis against the vacant post w.e.f. the date of appointment, i.e., 29.10.1994. 10. The Single Bench quashed the order dated 4.11.1994 and also the order dated 8.2.1995 to the extent of appointing the petitioner on temporary basis. It was directed that petitioner's appointment on 29.10.1994 be maintained and he should be treated to have been appointed on regular basis against the vacant post w.e.f. the date of appointment, i.e., 29.10.1994. 10. Belatedly, the respondents filed writ appeal against the said judgment dated 19.2.2002, which was registered and numbered as WA No. 49/2009. In the appeal, it was pointed out on behalf of the State that though no counter was filed before the Single Bench, order dated 15.3.1996 passed by this court in Civil Rule No. 4609/1994 (N.A. Mazumdar v. State of Assam and Ors.) gave the reason why the petitioner was not allowed to join. It was held that CBI after due enquiry found that the Chief Conservator of Forests had committed fraud by giving wrong information to the Forest Department and made illegal appointments. Petitioner was selected because of favouritism and his appointment was vitiated by fraud. Noticing that the petitioner was unable to dispute the above factual aspect, the Division Bench vide order dated 3.4.2012 set aside the order of the Single Bench dated 19.2.2002 and remitted the matter to the Single Bench for fresh decision after taking into account the order dated 15.3.1996 or any other relevant issues raised by the parties. 11. That is how the present writ petition is again before the Single Bench for fresh consideration. 12. However, this court by order dated 20.11.2012 had dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution and had vacated the interim order passed earlier. Subsequently, on application filed by the petitioner, case was restored to file and is now being taken up for hearing. 13. On the matter being remitted back, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam on 21.5.2012. Stand taken is that an ex cadre post of Chief Conservator of Forests (H.Q.), Assam was temporarily created by the Government for the period from 8.2.1993 to 31.5.1993 which was extended up to 31.10.1994 till the retirement of Sri A.H. Choudhury who was holding the said post. On his retirement, the said post was abolished. Stand taken is that an ex cadre post of Chief Conservator of Forests (H.Q.), Assam was temporarily created by the Government for the period from 8.2.1993 to 31.5.1993 which was extended up to 31.10.1994 till the retirement of Sri A.H. Choudhury who was holding the said post. On his retirement, the said post was abolished. It is stated that just on the eve of his retirement, Sri A.H. Choudhury, the then Chief Conservator of Forests (H.Q.) had appointed as many as 107 persons including the petitioner as Forester-I on temporary basis vide orders dated 29.10.1994 against posts sanctioned under the Waste Land Development Project. The appointments made by Sri A.H. Choudhury were found to be tainted with fraud. The appointment letters were issued illegally and arbitrarily, without following any procedure and were actuated with mala fide intention. Moreover, the Waste Land Development Project had already been abolished. 14. The above facts having come to notice, the State Government decided that nobody should be allowed to join pursuant to such illegal orders. Accordingly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests immediately issued order dated 4.11.1994, directing all concerned not to allow joining of any of the appointees. 15. Similarly situated persons like the writ petitioner had filed writ petitions before this court, which were registered as Civil Rule Nos. 3647/1994, 4950/1994 and 4609/1994. While hearing those writ petitions, this Court directed CBI to make an enquiry and to submit report before this court. After CBI submitted its report, the contents of which have been noticed above, this court vide judgment and order dated 15.3.1996 passed in MC No. 12/1996 in Civil Rule No. 46097 1994 dismissed all the writ petitions. 16. Mr. Borbhuya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had appeared in an interview pursuant to call letter issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests and, thereafter, he was appointed. On the strength of the interim order of this court passed on 10.3.1995, petitioner had continued in service as Forester-I for a long time, i.e.. for almost 18 years. He has also placed before the court a letter dated 16.10.1996, issued by the respondent No. 3, requesting the Conservator of Forests, Southern Assam Circle to consider the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption. for almost 18 years. He has also placed before the court a letter dated 16.10.1996, issued by the respondent No. 3, requesting the Conservator of Forests, Southern Assam Circle to consider the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption. Learned counsel submits that there was no wrong on the part of the petitioner and after rendering service for almost 18 years, it will be very harsh if the case of the petitioner is not considered. 17. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate has referred to the affidavit filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and submits that after the order of this court dated 15.3.1996, which has also been taken note of by the Division Bench, the question of entertaining the prayer of the petitioner does not arise. Since the very entry of the petitioner into service is tainted with fraud, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 18. Submissions made have been considered. 19. Facts which have emerged and which have been noticed above are quite glaring and speak for itself. This court in its order dated 15.3.1996, after referring to the report submitted by the CBI, came to the conclusion that the appointments made by Sri A.H. Choudhury, the then Chief Conservator of Forests (HQ), were tainted with fraud and question of granting relief to the petitioners in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court did not arise inasmuch as the writ court cannot put a premium on fraud and if the relief was granted to the petitioners, it was exactly what would have happened. All the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. 20. The petitioners of those writ petitions that were dismissed vide the order dated 15.3.1996, i.e., Civil Rule Nos. 3647/1994, 4950/1994 and 4609/1994 were appointed like the present petitioner by Sri A.H. Choudhury on 29.10.1994, two days prior to his retirement. It is brought on record that the appointments were made against the Waste Land Development Project, which had already been abolished. 21. When the initial appointment of the petitioner is vitiated by such fraud which has already been noticed by this court, question of granting any relief to the petitioner does not arise. Petitioner may have continued in service for a long time on the strength of the interim order of this court, but as is the settled position, interim orders are always subject to final orders of the court. Petitioner may have continued in service for a long time on the strength of the interim order of this court, but as is the settled position, interim orders are always subject to final orders of the court. Interim orders cannot confer any right on a petitioner. In a case when the foundation is removed, the superstructure is bound to fall. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 437 examined the effect of dismissal/withdrawal of a case on the interim relief granted. Hon'ble Apex Court held that no litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges into the final order and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment may be gainfully quoted : "15. No litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges into the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the case is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, or the party withdrew the writ petition, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a situation the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the court." 22. In such circumstances and considering the earlier order of this court dated 15.3.1996, this court finds no good ground to grant the reliefs) as prayed for by the petitioner. 23. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No cost. ____________________