Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner in the present writ petition was recruited to Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was sent for training to the Recruitment Training Centre II, CRPF Avadi, Madras. While the petitioner was undergoing training, certain posts of Sub Inspector (GD) were advertised by the Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi. The petitioner had the requisite qualification as advertised and, therefore, he moved to the Principal, Recruitment Training Centre II, CRPF, Avadi and this application of the petitioner (Annex. P/1) was forwarded by the Principal of the Training Centre to Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre, CRPF (G.C. II) vide Annex. P/2. Further the case of the petitioner is that he thought of going for the open competition for the post of Sub Inspector (GD) without having any concession whatsoever as a Departmental Candidate. (2). That the petitioner received a communication Annex. P/3 from the office of the Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre-I, CRPF, Ajmer whereby, he was required to bring with him certain certificates including the No Objection Certificate from the present employer, if employed. The case of the petitioner is that vide Annex. P/4 he applied for the NOC being granted to him. Vide Annex. P/5 result of the selection was declared and the petitioner was declared as selected and figured in the S.C. Quota at serial No. 19 in the list issued by the Director General of CRPF. (3). The petitioner for getting selected had to appear in the examination and for that he took leave from the 3rd Battalion for appearing in the examination and during the period of leave he appeared in the examination. Subsequent to his selection he tendered his resignation and in his resignation he sought to get relieved within 24 hours. But, instead of relieving the petitioner, his services were terminated vide Annex. P/6 in terms of sub rule 1 of Rule 5. (4). The petitioner has challenged his termination on the ground that the order is though an order simplicitor, but it is infact actuated by malafides because when the petitioner sought his discharge from service to join at his new selected post i.e. of Sub Inspector (G.D.) the respondents felt agitated that the petitioner has qualifi- ed for the higher post and they terminated the service of the petitioner. (5). Further the grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annex. (5). Further the grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annex. P/8 his selection to the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) in CRPF has also been cancelled as he has not obtained no objection certificate from the 3rd Battalion, CRPF before submitting his application for getting selected as Sub Inspector (G.D.) and has violated the pro- visions of Recruitment Rules. It has further been mentioned in the order Annex. P/8 that the competent authority has not permitted the petitioner to join the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) CRPF, therefore, his selection for Sub Inspector (G.D.) was cancelled. (6). The respondents have put in their appearance and have contested the claim of the petitioner. They have stated that the petitioner has not routed his appli- cation through any office under which he was working. He has done so because he has not completed minimum required service of 3 years for recruitment as per advertisement. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner has applied for no objection certificate on 22.7.92, whereas, the last date of submitting the form was 15.6.92 and, therefore, his application for grant of NOC was not consi- dered. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has admitted that he has applied directly, therefore, the required conditions as advertised were not satisfied as he was required to route his application through proper channel or obtain No Objection Certificate from his employer. No only that the petitioner has not routed his application through proper channel, but he also kept his employer i.e. the res- pondents under dark about his effort to obtain employment in question as Sub Inspector (G.D.). The respondents have produced on record Annex. R/1, an application moved by the petitioner for sanctioning leave on the ground that he has urgent work at his home and, therefore, his leave should be granted. Here an attempt has been made by the petitioner to keep the respondents in dark about his effort of getting employment as Sub Inspector (G.D.). Not only this, when after the period mentioned in the application for 60 days expired, he did not report on duty back and made a further application which has been produced alongwith the reply as Annex. R/2 in which the reasons for not reporting is that he has become seriously ill and, therefore, he could not report on duty. Not only this, when after the period mentioned in the application for 60 days expired, he did not report on duty back and made a further application which has been produced alongwith the reply as Annex. R/2 in which the reasons for not reporting is that he has become seriously ill and, therefore, he could not report on duty. Therefore, a false reason was given by the petitioner in his application and false certificates of his sickness were annexed by him as Annex. R/3 to R/7. The petitioner has not only used a deception in seeking leave, but at the time of seeking release from service he moved an application, wherein, he stated that his father has expired and his mother remain sick and has got her one eye damaged. Since he cannot look after them by remain- ing in service, therefore, he desired to be relieved within 24 hours. Apart from his own sickness he doctored such circumstances which were non existant. Infact, he wanted to get relieved to join his new posting as Sub Inspector (G.D.) and for that he even gave an undertaking produced with reply as Annex. R/9, where a clear understanding was shown by him that he is resigning because of his domestic rea- sons and deception was played by the petitioner to get the release from CRPF. (7). The case of the answering respondents is that the conduct of the petitioner, who seeks employment in a defence oriented organisation by playing deceit, disentitle him from granting any indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The selection of the petitioner as Sub Inspector (G.D.) was without the consent and knowledge of his employer, who were of course respondents but he concealed these facts in such a fashion that it could not come to the notice of the employer immediately. The leave application which he moved to get N.O.C. was an attempt to approbate and reprobate. The N.O.C. was asked for after the last date of submission of form and, therefore, the same application was not considered and perhaps the petitioner thought that he can play deceit with his employer by holding information and can join his new posting. Further the conduct of the petitioner in seeking discharge and not informing his employer immediately deserves notice. The N.O.C. was asked for after the last date of submission of form and, therefore, the same application was not considered and perhaps the petitioner thought that he can play deceit with his employer by holding information and can join his new posting. Further the conduct of the petitioner in seeking discharge and not informing his employer immediately deserves notice. It was, only after, when he was advised to withdraw, application for discharge by explaining him about the difficulties in getting a job, that he disclosed that he had appeared for the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) and he has been selected. Thus, the petitioner had made all efforts to play clear deceit and, therefore, not entitled to grant of any relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Supreme Court case in case of Director General of Police & Ors. vs. Mrityunjay Sarkar & Ors. (1). According to him the order of discharge in the instant case was actuated by the petitioner going for employment as Sub Inspector (G.D.) and, therefore, constituted the foundation of the order. Such foundation, if provided for the order of discharge then the order becomes an order of penalty and causes stigma on the respondents and without enquiry such discharge could not have been ordered. Another case relied upon by the petitioner (Union of India & Ors. vs. Jayakumar Parida (2)), wherein, it was held that since the action was initiated on the basis of report submitted against the respondent that he had produced false income certificate, it formed a foundation and not a motive for taking the impugned action and, therefore, without enquiry the petitioner could not be removed from service. He has also argued that he could not have been removed without recourse to CRPF Act and without holding enquiry. (9). Learned Counsel for the respondents have urged that there was no question of any foundation being connected to his selection as Sub Inspector (G.D.). The petitioner was a temporary employee and having not completed 3 years under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 he was liable to be discharged at any time on one months notice, and such notice was to be given under Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was a temporary employee and having not completed 3 years under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 he was liable to be discharged at any time on one months notice, and such notice was to be given under Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has not completed three years of service and, therefore, under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 he was given one months notice which was valid in terms of Rule 16 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 and, therefore, the termination was valid and lawful. (10). The facts as are obtained on the record are clear that when the petitioner wanted to apply through department his application could not be processed for lack of requisite time in service as he had not even completed three years of service. Then he opted for a short cut and directly applied. The conduct of the petitioner in not letting his employers i.e. respondents to know that he is trying to get employment directly and moved on leave on domestic grounds. It confirms the attitude of the petitioner that he wanted to conceal the fact of his attempt for other appointment. He made all possible efforts to keep in dark the respondents, as far as his fresh employment was concerned. The advertisement for employment clearly mentioned that those who are serving have to apply through their employer or No Objection Certificate has to be annexed with the application form. Neither the No Objection Certificate was annexed nor he applied through department as having been admitted by him. An attempt to place reliance on Annex. P/1 and Annex. P. 2 would be of no avail. A person applying directly is not entitle to be considered when he is in employment. In case of the petitioner, admittedly he was in employment. His application was not forwarded through department as his application for N.O.C. was not processed because it was made after the last date of the submission of the forms, therefore, there was no N.O.C. granted. The petitioner has admitted that he has directly applied. If the petitioner had initially not qualified to get into then his mere selection does not entitle him to pursue further training as he has not fulfilled those requirements which are required to initiate his entry into the selection, therefore, the order Annex. The petitioner has admitted that he has directly applied. If the petitioner had initially not qualified to get into then his mere selection does not entitle him to pursue further training as he has not fulfilled those requirements which are required to initiate his entry into the selection, therefore, the order Annex. P/7 suffers from no infirmity. It has been passed after due application of mind and considering the conduct of the petitioner. (11). As regards the motive and foundation, suffice it to say that the order is a plain order of discharge. No foundation can be seen in the order Annex. 6 as canvassed by the petitioner. The order causes no stigma on the petitioner. Apart from this, any aspect which comes in the way of the petitioner is his own conduct. His application for leave was a clear example of deceit played by him. When he has obtained leave on false grounds he makes himself amenable to such charges which are sufficient to give employer a feeling of loss of confidence in him and if there was loss of confidence then temporary employee can always be removed as per the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1965 and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order. (12). As regards the termination of the petitioner is concerned, he was a temporary employee. As provided in C.R.P.F. Rules, in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was applicable and he was only entitled to one months notice and that notice was given to him. On the basis of that notice no proceedings under C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 was required to be initiated. (13). There is no force in the writ petition and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.