JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was a probationer and was appointed on the post of constable. He came in through the quota fixed for Home Guard as he claimed himself to be a trained home guard and produced certain certificates in support thereof. While the petitioner was still undergoing training verification of his certificate was made and it was found that he had produced a forged certificate because training was obtained by yet another home guard having number 2909 but the document and the certificate of the said home guard was utilized by the petitioner in obtaining appointment. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, they took action against him by holding an enquiry. 3. Submission of learned counsel is that no prosecution witness was examined. The enquiry was not conducted properly and he was not given opportunity to defend himself. 4. The stand of the State is that submissions of the petitioner are misplaced. The home guard certificate on verification was found to be. forged and this aspect proved in the enquiry. It came during enquiry that the so-called training experience certificate is of his brother which was utilized by the present petitioner in obtaining appointment in a fraudulent manner and a criminal case has been instituted against him which would be evident from Annexure-6. 5. Irrespective of the so called technicality raised by the petitioner with regard to punishment of dismissal, the Court granted opportunity to petitioner to establish his bona fide by prima facie placing the material before the Court that he was a trained home guard and he couid claim benefit of appointment on the basis of quota for trained home guard but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever is availabie is available In the pleading and he has nothing more to say. 6. Prima facie the charge or the allegation of obtaining employment by fraudulent means has been established in the enquiry. Equity cannot flow in favour of a person who has obtained employment by fraudulent manner. 6. Prima facie the charge or the allegation of obtaining employment by fraudulent means has been established in the enquiry. Equity cannot flow in favour of a person who has obtained employment by fraudulent manner. The findings being what they are coupled with the fact that the petitioner was still a probationer during which period all these facts emerged, a simple order of termination would have been more than enough but the respondent gave opportunity to petitioner to come clean on the issue but except for trying to nit-pick on the procedure he has nothing substantive to place on his bona fide of his claim as a trained home guard. The conduct of the petitioner and the pleadings of the writ application are not sufficient to make out a case in favour of the petitioner. 7. This writ court is a court of equity and in view of the finding of fraud and deceit found in enquiry the Court will not come in defence of the petitioner. 8. This writ application is dismissed.