ORDER Arun Mishra, J. In this writ petition petitioner has prayed for the relief of quashing the order (P/12) and order (P/13) which were passed by respondents accepting the resignation tendered by him. Petitioner was appointed as an Asstt. Engineer in Bhopal Development Authority in the year 1983, later on he was promoted on ad hoc basis as Executive Engineer as per Order (P/2) dated 15th July, 1988. It is not in dispute that petitioner had contested the election of Xlth Loksabha held in April/May, 1996. Petitioner submitted that though the orders have been passed accepting his resignation, but he had not submitted any such resignation. He has rather applied for earned leave as per application (P/3) and proceeded on leave in anticipation of the same. Petitioner initially prayed in the application (P/3) for grant of earned leave with effect from 15-4-1996 to 30-5-1996, later on petitioner claims he had applied for leave with effect from 1-4-1996 to 30-5-1996 and handed over the charge on 30th March, 1996. After election was over and after he was defeated in the election as apparent from election notification (R/5) in which the details of the votes obtained by each of the candidates have been mentioned, he submitted joining which was refused as per letter (P/7) dated 14-5-1996. Joining was refused by Chief Executive Officer on the that petitioner had submitted the resignation which was accepted. He was relieved also as such his submitting the joining and prayer for obtaining the charge cannot be said to be in accordance with the rules. Petitioner was advised not to make any further communication in the matter. A notice (P/8) was circulated on 14-5-1996 by which it was informed that resignation submitted by the petitioner stood accepted and petitioner was not in service with effect from 30th March, 1996. Petitioner submitted a representation (P/9) alleging that he had not tendered any resignation. Other representations were also submitted. Petitioner submitted that Order (P/12) which has been passed on 30th March, 1996 is on factually incorrect basis and also the order (P/13=R/2) which has been passed by the State Government on 17th February, 1997 of acceptance of the resignation is not legal. Hence both orders be quashed and reinstatement of the petitioner be ordered. No return has been filed by respondent No. 1. A return has been filed by respondents No. 2 and 3/ Bhopal Development Authority. Hence both orders be quashed and reinstatement of the petitioner be ordered. No return has been filed by respondent No. 1. A return has been filed by respondents No. 2 and 3/ Bhopal Development Authority. It is contended in the return that resignation letter (R/1) was submitted by the petitioner on 30th March, 1996 and prayer was made to accept it. Order (P/12) was issued pursuant to the resignation and the same was forwarded to the concerned authorities. Respondent No. 3 accepted the resignation on the very same day in anticipation of the acceptance by the State of M.P. No verbal permission was given to the petitioner to proceed on leave by respondent No. 3 to contest the Loksabha election, contesting the election is against the service rules and code of conduct. Petitioner has submitted resignation, there was no question of grant of leave. In the exigency Chairman has accepted the resignation as prayed by the petitioner. Leave application (P/4) has not been submitted as per Leave Rules in the prescribed proforma. It was neither submitted through proper channel nor recommended. Leave was never sanctioned. Petitioner had contested the election which he could not have contested without submitting the resignation. M.P. Development Authority Services (Officers and Servants) Recruitment Rules, 1987 prohibits taking part in politics. Rule 40 prescribes that no employee can take part in politics. Rule 40 is quoted below:- 40. Taking part in Politics. - It shall be the duty of every authority employee not to take out in politics and to endeavour to prevent any member of its family dependent on him from taking part in subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner any movement or activity which is or tends directly or indirectly to be subscribing of the authority or the Government and where a Authority employee is unable to prevent a member of his family from taking part in, or, subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner, any such movement or activity he shall make a report to the effect to that Authority. Action is proper, no interference is called for. Petitioner has no legal basis to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Shri Girish Kekre, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that petitioner did not submit any resignation as such there was no question of its acceptance. Action is proper, no interference is called for. Petitioner has no legal basis to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Shri Girish Kekre, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that petitioner did not submit any resignation as such there was no question of its acceptance. When he had submitted the joining after contesting Lok Sabha election, the same ought to have been allowed. Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Shri V. Awasthy, learned Government Advocate and Shir G.C. Jain have submitted that the action of the respondents is proper. In order to contest the election, petitioner has submitted a resignation which fact he has suppressed initially from the writ petition, when the return has been filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, writ petition has been amended. The petitioner has submitted resignation which has been accepted by the Chairman and was forwarded for acceptance to the State Government, State Government has accepted the resignation as per order (P/13). In the circumstances of the case as it is not in dispute that election of Loksabha was contested by petitioner he has obviously submitted a resignation. It is clearly as an afterthought, after he was defeated in the election, he has submitted the joining. Petitioner cannot be allowed to act at his whims to submit resignation, contest election and thereafter rejoin the services. petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Conduct of petitioner disentitles him to an indulgence in writ petition. In the instant case petitioner was holding a responsible post and it is also not in dispute that he has contested the election of Xlth Loksabha. It is also apparent that he contested it from Bhind constituency and had lost it as apparent from notification (R/5). Thus, there is absolutely nothing to doubt that petitioner had submitted the resignation in order to contest the election of Xlth Loksabha. Petitioner was substantively holding the post of Asstt. Engineer, resignation was accepted by the Chairman at the request of petitioner as he wanted to contest the election. After acceptance of the resignation, he had contested the election. State Government has also passed an order accepting the resignation. Order (R/2) was passed on 17-2-1997. Petitioner was substantively holding the post of Asstt. Engineer, resignation was accepted by the Chairman at the request of petitioner as he wanted to contest the election. After acceptance of the resignation, he had contested the election. State Government has also passed an order accepting the resignation. Order (R/2) was passed on 17-2-1997. In the circumstances, it is clear that in order to contest the election petitioner has left the services of Bhopal Development Authority by submitting the resignation and cannot be allowed to take a somersault and to contend that he had never submitted such a resignation. Conduct of the petitioner is absolutely unjustified and totally unbecoming of an employee. petitioner has no respect to the truth and his conduct is such by which he cannot be said to be entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Resignation has been rightly accepted by the respondents. I find no ground to make an interference in the writ petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Final Result : Dismissed