V. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) 1. Brief background giving rise to instant writ petition is that petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature for being appointed as constable in Central Reserve Police Force, Allahabad initiated by additional Deputy Director, C. R. P. F, Group Centre, Allahabad. Petitioner qualified all prerequisite test and thereafter petitioners name was finalized on 30. 05. 2003 and petitioner was required to submit his joining on 09. 06. 2003 and was to be sent for training at Recruitment Centre, IV c. R. P. F. Shrinegar. After training was over petitioner submitted his joining and was accorded placement at 8th Battalion at Lucknow. During the training period show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 22. 02. 2005 mentioning therein that petitioner has not furnished correct information while submitted information qua himself and has made incorrect declaration. In the show cause notice it was mentioned that against petitioner a criminal case being Case Crime No. 486-A of 1998 under section 336/323/504 IPC was registered and petitioner did not disclose aforesaid fact and when character verification and antecedent exercise was undertaken then from District Collector, Sultanpur information was received of the said criminal case. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 09. 03. 2005 and thereafter petitioner was served with notice dated 18. 07. 2005 by means of which it was mentioned that in pursuance of authority vested of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 services of the petitioner shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of one month from the date on which this notice is given to him. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he has been exonerated in the aforesaid criminal case on 30. 08. 2005. Petitioner has contended that thereafter based on the order dated 18. 07. 2005 his name has been struck off from the said Unit with effect from 12. 09. 2005. Petitioner has contended that he represented on 26. 09. 2005 mentioning therein that there is no criminal case pending and he has no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case. Petitioner preferred appeal and therein petitioner has contended that action which has been taken against him is not in consonance with the Rules. Petitioner has been informed that matter has been considered and action which has been taken is justifiable action. Petitioner preferred appeal and therein petitioner has contended that action which has been taken against him is not in consonance with the Rules. Petitioner has been informed that matter has been considered and action which has been taken is justifiable action. Revision too had been preferred and said Revision also ended in dismissal. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. ( 2 ) COUNTER affidavit, on behalf of respondents, has been filed and it has been mentioned that services of the petitioner has been dispensed with strictly in consonance with the statutory rules and further in verification roll which was filed by the petitioner, petitioner did not disclose as to whether any criminal case is pending against him. At item no. 12 if the said Form it was specifically stated while answering the aforesaid column as "not Applicable" as such petitioner suppressed the factual information about his involvement in a criminal case and furnished wrong information under his own signatures. Verification of the character and antecedents is an important criterion to judge the suitability of the selected candidate, hence suppression of material information and making false statement had a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the petitioner in relation to his continuance in service, as such rightful decision has been taken. ( 3 ) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit has also been filed, appending therein copy of the order sheet and based on the same it has been sought to be contended that order sheet clearly demonstrates that petitioner at no point of time appeared for seeking any kind of relief towards bail etc or for facing trial, and that petitioner has no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case as such there is no infirmity in the declaration which has been made. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. ( 4 ) SRI C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that petitioner had no knowledge or information of the aforesaid criminal case as such declaration which was given by him could not be termed to be incorrect declaration and further on subsequent occasion in the said criminal case order of acquittal has been passed, as such same cannot be made foundation and basis for non-suiting the claim of the petitioner and further action taken is stigmatic and punitive in nature, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 5 ) SRI Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that petitioner has suppressed the material information which clearly established that he was not fit for being enrolled as member of disciplined force and further subsequent acquittal will have no bearing in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, services of the petitioner has been dispensed with as per terms and condition of the service in consonance with the provisions as contained under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging in the present case is that petitioner on 03. 08. 2004 in term of rule 14 (B) of the Rules petitioner was asked to fill up verification roll in his own handwriting and while filling up Column No. 12 a categorical declaration was to be made to the following effect which is being quoted below: " (a)Have you ever been arrested prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualification by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection or debarred from taking any examination/requested by any university or any other education authority/institution? (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is "yes" then give details of prosecution, detention time, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/university/education authority at the time of filling in this form. If answer to (a) or (b) is "yes" then give details of prosecution, detention time, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/university/education authority at the time of filling in this form. " ( 7 ) PETITIONER has made categorical statement that same was not applicable. It was categorically mentioned therein, that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the verification Roll, would be disqualification and is likely to render unfit candidate for employment under Government. Qua declaration which was made, verification was got done and then from District Magistrate Sultanpur, U. P. , report was submitted that against the petitioner Case Crime No. 486-A of 1998 under section 336/323/504 IPC has been registered wherein Charge-Sheet No. 1 dated 04. 01. 1999 has been transmitted and when this report has been received then on 22. 02. 2005 notice was issued to the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which wrong declaration has been furnished by the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his reply on 09. 03. 2005 and mentioned therein that petitioners family had quarrel with neighbours where he had never participated but in spite of the same his name was also mentioned in the said criminal case by the neighbours and further petitioner has no knowledge of the same. Petitioner has also mentioned that said criminal case at the said point of time had been finished on account of compromise in between the parties as such in the service verification petitioner has not made declaration as such petitioner be excused. Thereafter on 18. 07. 2005 in term of Sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, Additional Deputy Inspector General of c. R. P. F, Allahabad passed order indicating therein that services of the petitioner shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry one month from the date on which this notice is given to him. Thereafter petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case and as his named has been struck of from roll and Appeal/revisionpreferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. It has been sought to be contended by the petitioner that he has no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case. Reply which has been submitted by the petitioner on 09. 03. 2005 mentions that his name has been mentioned in the said criminal case and he had no knowledge. It has been sought to be contended by the petitioner that he has no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case. Reply which has been submitted by the petitioner on 09. 03. 2005 mentions that his name has been mentioned in the said criminal case and he had no knowledge. Petitioner simultaneously goes to mention that said criminal case at that point of time on the basis of compromise come to end, as such in verification roll petitioner has not made declaration. Reply which has been submitted by the petitioner on the face of it gives incorrect picture, inasmuch as on 09. 03. 2005 when reply was submitted said criminal case was pending before competent Criminal Court. Petitioner has mentioned that he has no knowledge of the criminal case at the point of time when order of acquittal has been passed on 30. 08. 2005 by Chief Judicial magistrate, Sultanpur. Categorical observation has been made in the operative portion of the judgment that accused Smt. Krishna Devi Dubey, aanant Kumar and Ashuthosh Kumar are exonerated, the accused persons are on bail and their bail bond is being cancelled and persons who had entered as sureties they are being left off. Order sheet has been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit and by means of said order sheet it has been sought to be demonstrated that petitioner at no point of time appeared for seeking any kind of relief towards bail or facing trial. In the entire body of the writ petition nor supplementary affidavit filed it has been mentioned by the petitioner that he had never applied for bail and he was never on bail and further judgment dated 30. 08. 2005 contains incorrect statement of fact that petitioner was on bail. Order sheet is of the trial. Even during the continuance of investigation one can apply for bail and obtain bail and similarly even during continuance of trial bail can be obtained. Here order sheet of criminal case has been filed and it has not at all been disclosed as to whether during the course of investigation bail had been applied for or not. Reply submitted by the petitioner on 09. 03. 2005 and the facts mentioned in the judgment dated 30. 08. 2005 clearly points out in the direction that petitioner had knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case and voluntarily incorrect disclosure has been made by him. Reply submitted by the petitioner on 09. 03. 2005 and the facts mentioned in the judgment dated 30. 08. 2005 clearly points out in the direction that petitioner had knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case and voluntarily incorrect disclosure has been made by him. ( 8 ) HONble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar reported in 1997 SCC (Lands) 492 has taken the view that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post. Para-3 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below: "verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to text whether the selected candidates is suitable to a post under the State. Though the respondent was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected. On account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it is not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable in the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the directing for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct of character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way the law will take care of the consequences. ( 9 ) THEREAFTER Honble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 256 has reiterated similar view by mentioning that whether the fact that the criminal case was subsequently withdrawn or that the offence charged with was not serious was material. Issue was as to whether material has been suppressed and false statement has been made bearing character and antecedent of respondent. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are being quoted below:- "6. Issue was as to whether material has been suppressed and false statement has been made bearing character and antecedent of respondent. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are being quoted below:- "6. In order to appreciate the respective contentions advanced on behalf of either side, it is necessary and useful to notice the terms of offer of appointment and useful to notice the terms of offer of appointment and the columns contained in the attestation from Paragraph 8 of the memorandum containing offer to the extent relevant reads. "if he/she accepts the offer on the terms and conditions stipulated, he/she would send her acceptance immediately to this office on receipt of this memorandum and join the Kendriya Vidyalaya mentioned overleaf. Necessary proforma for the purpose of annexure I to VI and attestation forms are enclosed wherewith which should be submitted to the concerned principal, after getting the same duly completed in all respects. " para-9 of the same memorandum is to the following effect "suppression of any information will be considered a major offence for which the punishment may extend to dismissal from the service. " the attestation from dated 26. 06. 1998 duly filled by the respondent and attestation show that the respondent has taken B. A. degree from St. Alyusius College, JBP and B. Ed and M. Ed degrees from R. Durgavati vishwavidyalaya, JBP Column Nos. 12 and 13 as filled up read thus:- 12. Have you ever been arrested prosecuted/kept under detention or bound down/find convicted by a court of law of any offence? No 13 Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filing up this attestation from. No. " ( 10 ) THE respondents has also certified the information given in the said attestation form as under- "i certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under government. " ( 11 ) THE memorandum dated 7/8. 04. 1999 terminating the services of the respondent refers to column nos. I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under government. " ( 11 ) THE memorandum dated 7/8. 04. 1999 terminating the services of the respondent refers to column nos. 12 and 13 of the attestation form the criminal case registered against the respondent on the basis of the report given to the appellants by IGI Police, suppression of material information by the respondent while submitting attestation form and violating the clause stipulated under para-9 of the offer of appointment issued to him. O. M. dated 01. 07. 1971 of Cabinet Secretary, Department of Personnel, New delhi in which it is clearly mentioned furnishing of false information or suppression of factual information in the attestation form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the government and that as per clause 4 of offer of appointment the respondent was on probation for a period of two years and that his services were liable to be terminated by one moths notice. 7. It is not in dispute that criminal case registered under Sections 323,341294 and 506-B read with Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the respondent filled the attestation form. Hence, the information given by the respondent as against column Nos. 12 and 13 as "no" is plainly suppression of material information and it is also a false statement. Admittedly the respondent is holder of B. A. B. Ed and M. Ed degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. It is also not the case of his education. It is also not the case of respondent that he did not study English at all. It he could understand column nos. 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form. It is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of column Nos. 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken help of somebody. It he could understand column nos. 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form. It is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of column Nos. 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken help of somebody. This being the position the tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the high Court committed a manifestly error in accepting the contention that because the medium of instructions of respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13. It is not the case of column Nos. 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said "no" as against column nos. 12 and 13 without understanding the contents. Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences. In our opinion were not material. The requirement of filling column nos. 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedent of the respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. 8. The object requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and very the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as physical education teacher in Kendriya vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief if he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted. " ( 12 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Prasad Patel Vs. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted. " ( 12 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Prasad Patel Vs. Union of India and others reported in [ 2006 (3) ESC 1669 (All) (DB)] has taken the view that antecedent, conduct /character of candidate to be appointed to service is of paramount consideration, and not the result of criminal case, in which he has been involved and as petitioner had not furnished information sought at the time of enrolment, as such dispensation of service cannot be said to be illegal. Relevant paragraphs 6 to 26 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below: "6. The application form had been filled up by the appellant in 1986 wherein column no. 8 requires the applicant to furnish the information as to whether the applicant had ever been imprisoned or had been put under trial for any offence or any complaint or report had ever been made against the applicant to the Magistrate or Police for any offence. The petitioner-appellant filled up the said column by writing the word no. Therefore, there is no dispute that he had not furnished the correct information sought for in this regard. The application form had been filled up by someone else in English but has been signed by the appellant himself. The appellant had been tried in a criminal case which has subsequently been decided vide judgment and order dated 12. 07. 1995 (Annex. 4), wherein he stood convicted for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC, however, he has been given the benefit of the provisions of Act 1958. It has further been observed that the conviction would not adversely affect his civil rights in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act 1958. It is settled proposition of law where an applicant gets an order office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal. " (Vide S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and ors. , AIR 1994 SC 853 . In lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay, 1956 All. "fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal. " (Vide S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and ors. , AIR 1994 SC 853 . In lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay, 1956 All. E. R. 349, the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything. " ( 13 ) IN Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling mills and Anr. , AIR 1994 SC 2151 ; and State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "equity is,also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law. " ( 14 ) IN Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Bros. , AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under:- "fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. " ( 15 ) IN United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors. , AIR 2000 sc 1165 , the Apex Court observed that "fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Similar view has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in M. P. Mittal Vs. State of haryana and Ors. , AIR 1984 SC 1888 . ( 16 ) THE ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf. In Union of India and ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100, the Apex Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector and Chairman, vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. In Union of India and ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100, the Apex Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector and Chairman, vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 , observed as under:- "if by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer. " Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in S. Partap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 ; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and ors. , (2003) 8 SCC 319 ; and Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325. ( 17 ) THE Common Law doctrine of public policy can be enforced wherever an action affects/ offends public interest or where harmful result of permitting the injury to the public at large is evident. More so, if initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Subla Fundamento cedit opus"-a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case legal maxim Nullus Commodum capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. (Vide union of India Vs. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340 ). The violators of law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subject matter of inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 2000 SC 1650 ). Nor a person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing. (Juri Ex injuria Non Oritur ). ( 18 ) IN Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. Sushil kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 , the Honble Supreme Court examined the similar case where the appointment was refused on the post of Police Constable and the Court observed as under:- "it is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service. " ( 19 ) IN Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709 ; and a. P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu, AIR 2005 SC 4292 , the Honble Supreme Court examined a similar case, wherein, the employment had been obtained by suppressing the material fact that criminal proceedings were pending against him at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not have good knowledge of that, and therefore, could not understand as what information was sought. The Apex court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. "the requirement of filling column nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form" was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuance in service. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form" was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuance in service. ( 20 ) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the impugned orders could not have been passed without giving him an opportunity is also preposterous for the reason that in such case where an order is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, the principles of natural justice are not attracted to rectify the mistake which the Authority had committed because of the fraud played by the applicant. In such eventualities, termination is automatic. ( 21 ) IN State of U. P. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679 , the Honble Apex court had observed that Courts have to examine whether the non-observance of any statutory provision or principle of natural justice have resulted in deflecting the course of justice. In S. L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Ors. , air 1981 SC 136 , the Honble Supreme Court has held that where from admitted or undisputed fact, only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one course is permissible to be adopted, the Court should not enforce the observance of principles of natural justice for the reason that it would amount to issuing a futile writ. ( 22 ) IN A. K. Kraipak and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1970 SC 150 , the honble Supreme Court observed as under:- "the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in the areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. . . . Whenever a complaint is made before the Court that some principles of natural justice had been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. . . . Whenever a complaint is made before the Court that some principles of natural justice had been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. " therefore, whether the principles of natural justice should be applied in a given case, depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case. In case the principles have not been applied but if even after their observation result could have been the same, enforcing the observance of such principles would be a futile exercise. (Vide Khem Chand Vs. Union of india and Ors. , AIR 1958 SC 300 ; and Laxmi Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 1070 . ( 23 ) IN the instant case, as it remained undisputed and undeniable that petitioner had not furnished the information sought at the time of enrolment correctly, we are unable to imagine as how the application of principles of natural justice would materially alter the result of the case. ( 24 ) IN U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee Vs. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and ors. , AIR 1991 SC 909 , the students had got admission in M. B. B. S. Course by making misrepresentation. The Honble Supreme Court rejected the plea of applicability of the Rules of Natural Justice observing that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned, do not justify attraction of the Rules of Natural Justice by providing them an opportunity of hearing. Even in a case where an applicant may not be responsible for playing fraud, his appointment can, also, be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in case the Authority comes to the conclusion that the appointment had been made by playing fraud by the Members of the Selection Committee though the candidate had not played any part/mischief in the said selection in krishan Yadav Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 2166 , the Honble apex Court observed that when the entire selection was stinking "conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit", individuals innocence has no place as fraud unravels everything. State of Haryana and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 2166 , the Honble apex Court observed that when the entire selection was stinking "conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit", individuals innocence has no place as fraud unravels everything. ( 25 ) THE ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf. ( 26 ) THUS, it is the antecedent, conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to the services which is of paramount consideration, not of the result of the criminal case in which he has been involved. In view of the above, the appellant has obtained the employment by misrepresentation, i. e. , suppressing the material information sought by the appointing authority. The information was required to verify his character and antecedents. Thus, neither the result of the prosecution nor the nature of the offence, in which he had been involved, has any bearing on the case. " ( 27 ) AT this juncture another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Roshan Singh Indaulia Vs. State of U. P. and others reported in[2006 (3)ESC 1839 (All) (DB)] is being looked into wherein it has been held that it is open to employer to terminate its employees by an order of termination simplicitor, when employees was temporary, instead of proceeding to hold departmental enquiry. Relevant paragraphs 12, 15, and 16 of said judgment are being quoted below: "12. No circumstance, the criminal trial subsequently conducted can be said to be foundation of the aforesaid order of termination. It is not disputed that all through the period of service, the petitioner-appellant was in temporary service. The applicability of 1975 Rules, has also not been disputed. Thus, it is always open to the competent authority to consider the work and performance of a temporary employee and if it is not satisfied, terminate his service at any point of time, particularly, when the power is conferred under the Rules. Further, if the temporary employee is not required to be continued in service even then he can be terminated in exercise of the aforesaid power. 15. Further, if the temporary employee is not required to be continued in service even then he can be terminated in exercise of the aforesaid power. 15. Whether an order of termination simplicitor is founded on the allegations of misconduct or not, the golden rule is to peruse the order itself and to find out as to whether it cause any stigma or it is founded on some allegations of misconduct. If the order ex facie does not show any stigma or that it is founded on any alleged misconduct, the Court should not travel beyond the order to find out some ground to make it penal. 16. Instead of burdening this judgment with the catena of decisions, it would be useful to refer a recent judgment of the Honble Apex Court in mathew P. Thomas vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and others, (2003) 3 SCC 263 where, after following Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, AIR 1999 sc 983 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate institute of Medical Sciences, AIR 2002 SC 23 the Honble Apex Court has observed as under: - "from a long line of decisions it appears to us that whether an order of termination is simplicitor or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination either is thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categorize or classify strictly orders of termination simplicitor falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simplicitor or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service. If the form and language of the so called order of termination simplicitor of a probationer clearly indicate that it is punitive in nature or/and it is stigmatic there may not be any need to go into the details of the background and surrounding circumstances in testing whether the order of termination is simplicitor or punitive. If the form and language of the so called order of termination simplicitor of a probationer clearly indicate that it is punitive in nature or/and it is stigmatic there may not be any need to go into the details of the background and surrounding circumstances in testing whether the order of termination is simplicitor or punitive. In cases where the services of a probationer are terminated by an order of termination simplicitor and the language and form of it do not show that either it is punitive or stigmatic on the face of it but in some cases there may be a background and attending circumstances to show that misconduct was the real basis and design to terminate the services of a probationer. In other words, the facade of the termination order may be simplicitor, but the real face behind it is to get rid of the services of a probationer on the basis of misconduct. In such cases it becomes necessary to travel beyond the order of termination simplicitor to find out what in reality is the background and what weighed with the employer to terminate the services of a probationer. In that process it also becomes necessary to find out whether efforts were made to find out the suitability of the person to continue in service as he is in reality removed from service on the foundation of his misconduct. " on the touchstone of the judgments quoted above claim of the petitioner is being adverted to. The facts noted in the earlier part of the judgment clearly shows that wrongful disclosure was made by the petitioner while filling up his character verification form. Authority on the verification of the same found that wrongful disclosure has been made by the petitioner in spite of the same as service of the petitioner was of temporary nature, as such as per term and condition of the employment proceeded to dispense with the service of the petitioner. Consequently as impugned order has been passed dispensing with the services of the petitioner as per terms and conditions of employment same cannot be said to be stigmatic or punitive in nature. ( 28 ) FROM the side of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Bhikam Singh Vs. The Union of India and another reported in [ 2003 (1) UPLBEC 441 ]. ( 28 ) FROM the side of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Bhikam Singh Vs. The Union of India and another reported in [ 2003 (1) UPLBEC 441 ]. In this case order of dismissal from service was found to be highly disproportionate to the charges levelled in this background respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and to pay arrears. Here in the present case facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable as service of the petitioner has been dispensed with in consonance with the term and condition of the employment and not as a result of regular departmental proceeding. ( 29 ) RELIANCE has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Satish Kumar shukla Vs. Union of India and others reported [2002 (1) ESC (All. J) 69. This judgment will not at all come to the rescue to the petitioner in view of subsequent judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in JT 2003 (2)SC 256 wherein totally contrary preposition has been laid down. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Regional Manager, Bank of baroda Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another reported in JT 1999 (1) SC 241. This judgment also will not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the said judgment has been considered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 256 and qua said case it has been mentioned that same has been decided in peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. Here in the present case services of the petitioner has been dispensed with as per term and condition of the employment as such there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order, consequently in view of the reason stated above present writ petition is dismissed.