The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the State Government to prohibit the execution of resolutions or orders passed by a Municipality under Section 34(1b) of the Municipalities Act, 1916, if they are prejudicial to the public interest or made in abuse of powers or in flagrant breach of any provision of the law.

( 1 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are stated as below : the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad. Fatehpur published an advertisement in daily newspaper dwaba Varta on 2. 7. 2000 inviting applications for ten posts of Junior clerks and one post of Draftsman for interviews to be held on 16. 7. 2000. The petitioner applied and appeared before selection committee consisting of the Chairman, the Executive Officer, Water Works junior Engineer and Sanitary Inspector of Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur. The petitioners, were selected and Issued appointment letter dated 18. 7. 2000 and joined in the office of Parishad on 19. 7. 2000. The daily wage workers, the staff of Octroi Department and other aggrieved persons lodged complaint in the office of District Magistrate, Fatehpur about the authority, manner and method of appointment by the then Chairperson in connivance with the Executive Officer. The district Magistrate Instituted an inquiry on which Additional District Magistrate, Fatehpur directed the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad to make available the entire record relating to such appointment, and not to take any work from the newly appointed persons, and to pay any salary to them. The petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos. 43541 of 2000, 44734 of 2000 and 44796 of 2000 in which interim orders were issued directing the Executive Officer to pay salary to petitioners, if they are working. The District Magistrate, sent a report to the State Government, on which the State Government, by its order dated 20. 1. 2001, decided and directed to cancel the appointment made in July, 2000. The order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 34 (1b) of the Municipalities Act, 1916. The State Government also directed the financial loss to be ascertained and to take proceedings for the realisation of such loss.

( 2 ) PETITIONER Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Writ Petition No. 43601 of 2001 and rest of petitioners filed writ Petition No. 5156 of 2001 challenging the orders passed by the State Government. This court vide its order dated 13. 2. 2001 found that the State Government has not passed a reasoned order and had not given any opportunity to the petitioners. The Court directed that in case petitioners make appropriate representation to the authority who passed initial order cancelling the appointment, the said representation shall be decided by reasoned order. The State government considered the representations filed by the petitioners afresh, and that by a detailed order dated 28. 11. 2001, these representations were rejected. The State Government found that the appointments were made against the Government Order dated 7. 5. 1992 by which the State government had directed all the local bodies to fill up the vacant posts by regularisation of those dally wagers who were working on or before 11. 10. 1989 and had completed more than three years of service with 240 days in each year. In case, dally wagers are not available, in view of the financial difficulties, the posts were to be kept vacant. In case it was necessary to appoint persons, the prior approval of the State Government was required. It was further directed that such recruitments shall be made under the supervision of District Magistrate by inviting applications from Employment Exchange and following the procedures and rules of reservation. The State Government found that the special appointments made in July, 2000 were irregular. The State Government was not informed nor any approval was taken from the State Government. The surplus staff of octroi department was not adjusted and that the District Magistrate was not informed or associated with the recruitment.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 42218 of 2001, challenging the order dated 28. 11. 2001 passed by the State Government, on the ground that the necessary documents and reports sent by the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate and Executive Officer, chairman of Nagar