' KHALIL-UR-REMAN RAMDAY, J.---Civil Petitions Nos.1767-L and 1768-L of 2000 are being disposed of together as both these petitions arise out of the same consolidated impugned judgment involving similar facts.
2. The petitioners claim to have been appointed to the posts of Junior Clerks in the year 1995. Their services were terminated through an order dated 18-12-1996 by the then Care-Taker Government on account of their appointments being illegal/bogus.
3. The representations filed by them before the departmental authorities remained unsuccessful as a result whereof they finally reached the Punjab Service Tribunal with appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
4. Having examined the matter in some detail, the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the appointments in question had not been made by the competent Authorties, that the availability of the posts in question and had never been advertised inviting applications for the same, that fake dispatch numbers had been assigned to the fake orders as the issuance of the appointment orders did not find mention in the relevant dispatch registers and that in the circumstances such- like appointments which were illegal and frandulent could not be permitted to continue.
5. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners at some length and have also examined the available record.
6. It is an established principle of administration of justice that any person who had not come to the Courts with clean hands was not entitled to any discretionary relief and even if some procedural illegality was shown to exist in the orders undoing the wrong, the Courts would not intervene to perpetuate a patently unjust, illegal and fraudlent act it was found as a fact by the learned Tribunal in the present case that the appointments were made surreptitiously behind the closed doors to oblige the petitioners to the prejudice of others who may be equally eligible and might be more qualified than the present petitioners and who stood deprived of their right to compete for the said posts on account of the misdeeds of the present petitioners.
7. In this view of the matter, we do not find this a case where this Court, which was mandated to do complete justice, could intervene in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed Leave refused.