( 1 ) THE petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 have been employed by the Municipal Board of Pilibhit as Octroi moharrirs, while petitioners Nos. 4 to 6 as Assistant Moharrirs in the said Municipal Board. In 1950, it seems, the State Government issued an order No. 765/ix-I. M. P. 250-1949 fixing minimum educational qualifications for the employees of the municipal boards functioning in this State. The petitioners were working on their posts on 12-7-1956 when the Municipal Board passed a resolution by a majority directing that removal notices be given to the Octroi Moharrirs who did not possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the aforesaid order. In pursuance of the said resolution the Executive Officer of the Board issued a notice to the petitioners, which runs as follows:

"please take notice that your service will be terminated with effect from 16-10-1956 as per B. R. No. 9 dated 12-7-1956 as you do not possess the requisite qualifications. Please treat it as three months notice for the termination of your service. "

The petitioners complaint is that before they were removed no notice was issued to them calling upon them to show cause against the proposed action, that the Government Order dated 10-4-1950 is ultra vires the powers of the Government, that the Municipal Board was not competent to remove the petitioners from their services, and that no power has been vested in the government or in the Board or the Executive Officer to remove the petitioners who were permanent employees.

( 2 ) IN my opinion the mere fact that no notice had been given to the petitioners before terminating their services would not invalidate either the resolution of termination or the notice issued in pursuance thereof.

( 3 ) IN the case of S. D. Mathur v. Municipal Board, Agra, 1956 All LJ 71: (AIR 1956 All 181) (A), it was held by this Court that the services of a municipal servant could not be terminated without furnishing him an opportunity of showing cause as required by the paragraphs appearing on pages 454 and 654 of the Municipal Manual. The relevant paragraph on page 454 is as follows:

"the principle that before dismissal an employee should be given a hearing and his reply reduced to writing and formal orders recorded, should be observed, in justice to their servants, by municipal boards. "

It will be noticed that this paragraph has no statutory force because it has no statutory foundation. It is based on a circular issued by the State Government. A circular cannot have statutory force. But apart from it, to my mind, this rule or provision is recommendatory and not mandatory in its nature. The word should used in the said provision is significant. However in view of the fact that I have not considered this paragraph to have any statutory force its breach does not confer on the petitioners any right of action.

( 4 ) MY attention has also been invited to page 654 of the Municipal Manual, where the following words occur:

"1. No officer or servant shall be dismissed, removed or reduced without a reasonable opportunity being given to him of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Any written defence tendered shall be recorded and a written order shall be passed.

2. Every order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be in writing and shall specify the charge or charges brought, the defence and the reasons for the order. "

( 5 ) THIS paragraph also to my mind has no statutory force and in fact it appears that it was only a draft regulation and in the present case it has not been shown to me that the draft regulation was ever accepted as regulation either lay the Municipal Board or by the Government. It will be noticed that at the bottom of page 653 the following words occur;

"the principle cited on p. 453 of this Manual that before dismissal an employee shall be given a hearing and his replies reduced to writing and formal orders recorded, should be observed, in justice to their servants, by boards. It