The appointment of a public servant must be ratified by the Board, and termination of services under the applicable rules is valid if there is no sanctioned post for the position.

( 1 ) IN all the above noted petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 36179 of 1991, shall be the leading case.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28. 11. 1991, whereby the Administrator of Nagar Palika, Mirzapur, has terminated the services of the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the Rules, known as the U. P. Municipal board Services [inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Services) Rules, for short "the Rules.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition. In brief, are that, according to the petitioner, he was appointed as clerk grade II on daily wage basis for a period of three months only by the then President of the Municipal Board, Mirzapur, by order dated 1. 6. 1990. The term of the petitioner is alleged to have been extended by the President by order dated 20. 9. 1990. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as clerk on 1. 6. 1990 and on 30. 1. 1991 he was attached to the Health Department of the Board. Subsequently, the Board was superseded and the Administrator was appointed to look after the affairs of the Municipal Board, who, according to the petitioner, acting illegally and in violation of the provision of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules, terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 28. 11. 1991, hence the present petition.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed claiming that the President of the Board had no authority to appoint the petitioner on daily wage basis or Otherwise as there existed no sanctioned post nor there existed any vacancy in the said post. It has been stated that vide Government Orders dated 12. 7. 1975 and 19. 12. 1977, the Government issued orders prohibiting the Presidents and the Boards to make appointments contrary to the provisions of the act. It has also been stated that appointment of the petitioner was never ratified by the Board inasmuch as the matter of appointment of the petitioner was never placed before the Board for its consideration and ratification. It has also been stated that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularized even if he has worked on the basis of the order passed by the President as there existed no sanctioned post of the clerk and vacancy therein and the financial condition of the board was precarious. The Administrator in exercise of his power under Rule 11 rightly terminated the services of the petitioner. The order of termination was quite legal. In the counter-affidavit, it has not been specifically or otherwise stated, that there existed any sanctioned post or vacancy therein at the time the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk in the Municipal Board. Mirzapur. In reply to the allegations made in the counter-affidavit, a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed in which the facts stated in the counter-affidavit have been denied and controverted and the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed.

( 5 ) IN Writ Petition Nos. 36224 of 1991, 36225 of 1991 and 36226 of 1991 the only difference is that the initial appointment was made in the Municipal Board not by the President of the Board but by the Water Works Engineer. In other respects, the facts are similar to other petitions.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was legally appointed by the President of the Municipal Board in the year 1990. His services have illegally been terminated by the Administrator in contravention and violation of provisions of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules, referred to above. The impugned order of termination was, therefore, liable to be quashed and the respondents were liable to be directed to regularize th