- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY means of this petition, petitioner challenges the order, dated 13. 7. 1972, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Qaimganj, dis trict Farrukhabad. It appears that the petitioner was an employee of the Municipal Board and was working on the post of Accountant in the Municipal Board, Qaimganj, district Far rukhabad. According to the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition, he was promoted to the post of Executive Officer vide order dated 27th August, 1971, passed by the President of the Municipal Board. A resolution is also alleged to have been passed by the Municipal Board for his ap pointment on the said post, later on the papers are alleged to have been submitted to the State Government for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Officer of the said Board. Admittedly, in-spite of letters and reminders no approval was accorded by the State Government to the appointment of the petitioner as Execu tive Officer. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the President vide order dated 13. 7. 1972 as stated above which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed and the facts stated in the writ petition have been con troverted. It has been stated that the post of Executive Officer is a centralised post and the appointments on the same and the other matters relating thereto are governed by the U. P. Nagar Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966 ( here in after referred to as the Service Rules ). It has also been stated that the appointment of the petitioner, if any, was not made in accordance with the said rules, the petitioner has got no right to con tinue on the said post. His services were rightly terminated by the President of the Municipal Board and he was rightly asked to hold the post on which he had his lien.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was rightly appointed as the Executive Officer by the President and, thereafter, his appointment was confirmed by the Municipal Board in exercise of the power under Section 57 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had the right to hold the said post and the President has no right to terminate his service. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned in the present petition is illegal and deserves to be quashed. On the other hand learned standing counsel submits that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer was contrary to the provisions of the rules. Appointment was never made by the State Government which is the appointing authority of the Executive Officers and was never approved by the appointing authority.;