JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that an order passed by the President, Municipal Board, Ramnagar, dated 12-1-1956 terminating the Petitioner's services be quashed. 2. The facts which are set out in the affidavit and which in essentials have not been controverted are that the Petitioner applied for the post of the Secretary, Ramnagar Municipal Board, as the post was advertised. The Petitioner was appointed to that post by the Municipal Board of Ramnagar by its resolution No. 75 dated 2-5-1954 which was subsequently clarified by another resolution of 21-6-1954. After the Board had approved his appointment by that resolution the resolution had to be sent to the Commissioner u/s 66 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and the Commissioner, Banaras Division, by his letter dated 16-9-1954 approved the appointment of the Petitioner to that post. There is some controversy between the parties as regards the interpretation of the approval given by the Commissioner which I shall deal with when dealing with the points raised by the Petitioner. The Petitioner however did not possess any riding certificate and under the approval order passed by the Commissioner he was to get a certificate within three months. Thereafter the Petitioner took over charge of the office of the Secretary on the 27-5-1954 and continued to work as the Secretary. The Petitioner however could not secure the necessary riding certificate within three months of the order of approval given by the Commissioner. The Petitioner's contention was that Ramnagar is a small municipality, he is not required to ride a horse and as he had much work he could not get time for proper training. At first the Petitioner was appointed on probation for one year and according to the Petitioner that period expired on the 26-5-1955 but no steps were taken by the Board to confirm his appointment thereafter. On the 9-11-1955 the Commissioner addressed a letter to the President, Municipal Board, Ramnagar, enquiring from him whether the Petitioner had furnished the riding certificate within the prescribed period of three months. The President, Municipal Board, Ramnagar, informed the Commissioner that the riding certificate had not been obtained but the correspondence for the same was going on with the District Magistrate, Banaras, and it was expected that he would be able to secure the certificate. The President, Municipal Board, Ramnagar, informed the Commissioner that the riding certificate had not been obtained but the correspondence for the same was going on with the District Magistrate, Banaras, and it was expected that he would be able to secure the certificate. After that the Commissioner wrote to the President on the 19-12-1955 asking him to relieve the Petitioner as he had failed to produce the riding certificate even after a lapse of one year. A meeting of the Board was held on the 24-12-1955 to consider the letter of the Commissioner and the Board decided to keep him in service and requested the Commissioner to give him further chance to produce the required riding certificate. A copy of this resolution was sent to the Commissioner. Thereupon the Commissioner sent an order to the President, Municipal Board, directing him to relieve the Petitioner within a week failing which he would take action u/s 35 of the UP Municipalities Act and shall appoint the District Magistrate to implement his order. On the 12-1-1956 the incharge President passed an order terminating the Petitioner's services in view of the direction of the Commissioner. In the meantime however, it should also be pointed out, the Petitioner had filed the necessary riding certificate given by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri. It is this order of the President terminating his services which is challenged by means of this writ petition. 3. Notices have been issued to the opposite parties, the Commissioner and the President, Municipal Board, Ramnagar. No reply has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Board. Only on behalf of the Commissioner a counter-affidavit has been filed in which the order of the President is sought to be justified. 4. Two points have been urged by the counsel for the Petitioner. Firstly, it is contended that there is nothing in Section 66 of the Municipalities Act which contemplates the granting of a provisional approval by the Prescribed Authority and as there is nothing in the Act which gives such a power the approval given by the Commissioner should be interpreted to mean a final approval for the appointment of the Petitioner subject to being defeated if the Petitioner failed to give the certificate within three months. In my opinion after the perusal of the approval letter it is quite clear that what the Commissioner meant by his approval was that the Petitioner should be allowed to work as the Secretary but he must submit his riding certificate within three months. The Petitioner was therefore duly appointed as the Secretary of the Board by the Municipal Board after taking the approval of the Commissioner. From the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner himself directing the President to terminate his services it seems that the Petitioner was in service of the Municipal Board otherwise the question of terminating the services would not have arisen at all. The question is if the Petitioner was in service could his services be terminated by the President without giving him due notice and without giving him due opportunity on the orders passed by the Commissioner. Section 67 of the Municipalities Act provides that: A Board may, by special resolution, punish or dismiss any secretary appointed under the preceding section subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 58 in respect of the punishment and dismissal of an executive officer. 5. The power to dismiss a Secretary has been given to the Board by a special resolution. In this case it is the President who had terminated the services of the Petitioner. Moreover, u/s 58 the Board has been given power to dismiss or remove its Executive Officer by a special resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members constituting the Board. That also had not been done in this case. Moreover, under the Rules framed under the Municipalities Act the services could not be terminated without giving due notice to the Petitioner. None of the formalities have been followed in this case. The contention raised by the counsel of the other side is that it is not a case of termination but the Petitioner did not fulfil the required qualification and therefore in fact he was never duly appointed to the post of the Secretary. From the fact that the President had terminated the services under the orders of the Commissioner and from the fact that in the order of approval given by the Commissioner he himself had said that the Petitioner was appointed on probation, it cannot be said that the appointment under this section was invalid as has been contended by the opposite party. I do not see what relevance Section 35 has to the facts of the present case. The Commissioner in his order gave a threat that in case the Board failed to carry out his orders the Commissioner was going to take action u/s 35 of the Municipalities Act. Section 35 of the Act is not meant for exercise of such powers as was observed by the Commissioner. Section 35 of the Municipalities Act provides that: 35(1).-If at any time, upon representation made or otherwise, it appears to the State Government that the Board of a city, or to the Prescribed Authority that the Board of a Municipality other than a city, has made default in performing a duty imposed on it by or under this or any other enactment, or in carrying out any order made or direction issued by the State Government in exercise of any power conferred by this Act or any other enactment, the State Government or the Prescribed Authority as the case may be, may after calling for an explanation from the Board and considering any objection by the Board to action being taken under this section by order in writing fix a period for the performance of that duty. 6. It has not been pointed out what was the duty under this Act which the Board could have been called upon to perform. In the letter of the Commissioner it is said that in case the Board did not comply with his orders the District Magistrate will have to be empowered to see that his orders were carried out u/s 35. As I have already pointed out Section 35 does not give power to the Prescribed Authority to get the compliance of any order made by him. It only gives him power to secure the compliance of the duty cast upon the President under this Act. In my opinion therefore this petition must be allowed. 7. I therefore allow this petition with costs and quash the order of the President dated 12-1-1956, terminating the services of the Petitioner.