JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - These two special appeals are being disposed of together because several points which are common to both the appeals have arisen for consideration. 2. The appellant in Special Appeal No. 31 of 1971 is Vijay Kumar Agarwal, who was appointed as an overseer in the Nagar Mahapalika of Lucknow in the month of February, 1962, and had continued to work as such till his services were terminated under the provisions of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with effect from 30th August, 1967. 3. The appellant in Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971 is B. N. Uffa. who had been confirmed as an accounts clerk in the service of the Municipal Board of Lucknow. He was working on that post when the Municipal Board was replaced by Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, on 1st February, 1960, the date from which the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam) came into force. According to the provisions of Sec. 577 (e) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam he became a temporary employee of the Nagar Mahapalika to be absorbed in the post to be created by the Mahapalika under Sec. 106 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. In the year 1966 he was `appointed Assistant Superintendent under the provisions of Sec. 108 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, and was working as such when he received the order dated 27th August, 1967, (Annexure II to the writ petition) passed under Rule 6 (2) of the Rules, stating that he was not found suitable for final absorption and his service of the order. 4. The two appellants named above. whose services were thus determined, filed separate writ petitions challenging the orders of termination of their services on several grounds. The petitioners challenged the very validity of the Rules, and contended that in any case Rule 6 of the Rules was void and inoperative. it was further contended by the petitioners that the compensation provided for those whose services were thus terminated was illusory. Again it was contended that the order terminating the services was invalid because no opportunity was given to the petitioners to show cause against the proposed order and no explanation was called from them nor any charge of inefficiency or corruption was framed. Again it was contended that the order terminating the services was invalid because no opportunity was given to the petitioners to show cause against the proposed order and no explanation was called from them nor any charge of inefficiency or corruption was framed. against them and no proper procedure based on the rules of natural justice was observed. It was contended that the order of termination branding the petitioners (appellants) as unsuitable for absorption was per se penal. It was also contended the adverse entries which existed in the character rolls of the petitioners (appellants) had been considered. It was urged that the result of these illegalities was that although the work of the petitioners was good, the) were not absorbed in the Centralised Services of the Nagar Mahapalika. 5. Vijay Kumar Agarwal (the appellant in Special Appeal No. 31 of 1971) took the further plea that although he was called for interview by the Selection Committee he was not asked to explain about the adverse entries existing in his character roll. The contention of B.N. Uffa was that he had not been called for interview by the Selection Committee and that in any case he being a permanent accounts clerk holding a lien on a post which was not included in the Centralised Services, he should not have been dismissed merely because he had not been found fit for absorption in the post of Assistant Superintendent which was one of the posts included in the post of Centralised Services. 6. The learned Single Judge, after having considered the affidavits filed by the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, arrived at the conclusion that here was no force in any of the contention raised by the petitioners (appellants) and that the rules were Validly framed. He, therefore, dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the orders in their writ petitions, both Vijay Kumar Agarwal and B. N. Uffa have filed these special's appeals. 7. The main question for consideration in both these appeals is whether the rules are valid and were properly framed and the services of the appellants could have been terminated under the Rules. Another question which is common to both the appeals is whether Rule 6 of the Rules is invalid. 8. 7. The main question for consideration in both these appeals is whether the rules are valid and were properly framed and the services of the appellants could have been terminated under the Rules. Another question which is common to both the appeals is whether Rule 6 of the Rules is invalid. 8. The main ground for challenging the Rules is that although Sec. 540 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam required the previous publication of Rules, they have not, in fact, been published under any of the provisions of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 9. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellants it would be necessary to give a brief history of the relevant legislation leading to the Rules. 10. Prior to the passing of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam all the Municipalities in Uttar Pradesh were governed by the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, (herein after referred to as the Municipalities Act). The Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam raising the status of the Municipalities in the KAVAL towns to that of Mahapalika was enforced on 1st February, 1960. It is to be noted that one of the appellants, namely, B. N. Uffa (appellant in Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971) was in the service of the Lucknow Municipality from much before the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was passed. As stated already, he was a permanent accounts clerk in the service of the Municipality. It was provided in Sec 577 of the Nagar Mahapali ka Adhiniyam that all officers and servants in the employ of the Municipal Board, Improvement Trust, Development Board or local authority which the Nagar Mahapalika constituted under the Adhiniyam was to replace were to become officers and servants employed by the Mahapalika in a temporary capacity. It also laid down that their absorption would take place in the post created by the Mahapalika in accordance with Sec. 106 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Provision was also made in Sec. 108 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam for making temporary and officiating appointments. It was under the provisions of Sec. 108 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam that B. N. Uffa (appellant in Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971) was appointed as an Assistant Superintendent in the year 1965, two years before his services were ordered to be terminated by the State Government. 11. It was under the provisions of Sec. 108 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam that B. N. Uffa (appellant in Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971) was appointed as an Assistant Superintendent in the year 1965, two years before his services were ordered to be terminated by the State Government. 11. The Municipalities Act and the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam were both amended in the year 1965, and similar provisions (69-B in the Municipalities Act, and Sec. 112-A in the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam) were incorporated in the two Acts to empower the State Government to provide by rules at any time for the creation of one or more services of such officers and servants as the State Government may deem fit common to all or some Municipal Boards and Mahapalikas of the State and prescribe the methods of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. It was also provided that when any such service is created, officers and servants serving on the post included in the service may, if found suitable, be absorbed in the prescribed manner in the service so created. 12. In the year 1966 the State Government published a notification in a gazette extraordinary and in that the draft rules of Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, which the Govt. proposed to make, were published. The power in exercise of which the draft was being published was mentioned in the notification to be clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 296 of the Municipalities Act. It was also noted in the notification that the draft was being published as required under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 300 of the Municipalities Act. There was no mention in the notification that the draft rules were published in accordance with the provisions of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, although in draft Rule 2 "Centralised Services" were defined to mean Services common to the Municipal Boards and the Mahapalikas created under Sec. 69-B of the Municipalities Act and Sec. 112-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 13. In the final notification issued on 9th July, 1966, it was sated that the rules had been framed under Sec. 112-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and Sec. 69-B read with clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 296 of the Municipalities Act and the rules were made after previous publication under a notification dated 18th June, 1966, as required by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 296 of the Municipalities Act and the rules were made after previous publication under a notification dated 18th June, 1966, as required by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 546 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 300 of the Municipalities Act. 14. After the rules had been published it appears that the State Government felt that they had gone a little beyond the provisions contained in Sec. 112-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and Sec. 69-B of the Municipalities Act. The Governor, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, promulgated and Ordinance on 5th Sept., 1966, amending Secs. 112-A and 577 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and Sec. 69-B of the Municipalities Act. Clause 4 of the Ordinance validated the rules already made, and further gave power to the State Government to amend the rules retrospectively. The rules were amended retrospectively by means of a notification published in an extraordinary gazette on 10th October, 1966. The U.P. Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966, was enacted to replace the aforesaid ordinance passed by the Governor. 15. The learned Single Judge, upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, arrived at the conclusion that although the power under which the Rules were published related to the provisions of the Municipalities Act only and not to the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, the validity of the Rules could not be questioned because of the provisions of Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 23 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. The Learned single Judge was also inclined to think that if common provisions are simultaneously made in two enactments so as to cover services under both the enactments then any rules made under the provisions of one enactment for services common to both the enactments, will by themselves be sufficient and effective for dealing with the concerned services under the other enactment. He, however, did not record any definite finding to that effect, but observed that the Rules could not be questioned because of the provisions of Sec. 28 (5) of the U.P. General Clause Act. 16. The most important question to be considered in these connected appeals is whether the Rules should be regarded to be invalid and inoperative because the draft rules were not published under the provisions of Sec. 540 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 17. 16. The most important question to be considered in these connected appeals is whether the Rules should be regarded to be invalid and inoperative because the draft rules were not published under the provisions of Sec. 540 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 17. It is to be noted that both under the provisions of the Municipalities Act and those of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam common rules for the Municipalities and the Mahapalika were to be framed by the Government. As observed earlier, the provisions of Sec. 69-B of the Municipalities Act and Sec. 112-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam were absolutely similar in nature and were introduced in the two Acts by means of amendments at one and the same time. Since the Centralised Services for the Municipalities and the Nagar Mahapalikas were to be common, the rules for the two were also bound to be common. The Publication of the rules was in fact made, that publication was not made in exercise of the powers under Sec. 540 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhinivarn. It is also to be remembered that both under the Municipalities Act and the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam it was U.P. Government which was competent to frame the Rules. Therefore, the publication of the draft rules was made by the U.P. Government. 18. The averment made in the official notification that the draft rules had been published was correct to this extent only that- (a) the draft rules had been published; and (h) they were published by the Government. That claim was, however, incorrect to the extent that the draft rules had not been published in exercise of the powers under Sec. 540 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 19. Sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 23 of the U.P. General Clauses Act reads as follows : "The publication in the official Gazette of a rule or bye-law purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made." It was observed in the case of Smt. Somwanti v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151 , that expression "conclusive evidence" has the same meaning as the expression "conclusive proof" and that Statutes used the expression "conclusive proof" where the object is to make a fact non-justiciable. 20. 20. In the case of The Municipal Board, Hapur v. Raghavendra Kripal, 1966 ALJ 205 the Supreme Court interpreted the effect of sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 135 of the Municipalities Act. Secs. 131 to 134 provide the procedure to be observed where the Board desires to impose a tax. According to the rules the Municipal Board has to pass a special resolution directing the imposition of the tax with effect from a date to be specified in the resolution. The resolution had then to be submitted to the State Government or the Prescribed Authority and the State Government or the prescribed Authority is required to notify in the official gazette the imposition of the tax from the appointed date. Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 135 provides that a notification for the imposition of a tax under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 135 shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with provisions of the Municipalities Act. The writ petition challenging the imposition of the tax was decided against the Municipal Board, Hapur, on the ground that mandatory requirements of the Municipalities Act were not duly complied with for imposing the tax and that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 135 of the Municipalities Act was ultra vires because it created a bar against proof and left no remedy to the tax-payers, thereby making a discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution between those tax-payers and other litigants. The Supreme Court hold that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 135 of the Municipalities Act was not ultra vires and that the said sub-section had put beyond question the procedure by which the tax is imposed. The imposition of the tax was held to be amply protected by the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 135 of the Municipalities Act and the tax was deemed to be imposed according to the procedure laid down in the Act 21. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter might be non-justiciable before a court of law, but the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can very well look into the matter to see that a totally wrong averment had not been made by the Government in the notification for enforcing the rules. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter might be non-justiciable before a court of law, but the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can very well look into the matter to see that a totally wrong averment had not been made by the Government in the notification for enforcing the rules. Reliance was placed on the case of The Automobile Transport Rajasthan (Pr.) Ltd., Ajmer v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 Rajasthan 24, in which a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considered the effect of sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was observed by the Rajasthan High Court that - "......Notwithstanding that the legislature may attribute finality to the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals, or what is analogous, invest the final publication of certain statutory rules in the official gazette with the quality of conclusiveness of proof that the rules have been duly made in the sense already discussed, the jurisdiction of this court as a court of judicial review, and as possessed of extensive writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, and where a proper and grave case is satisfactorily established that a decision is manifestly contrary to law or has been made wholly or partly in excess of jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of judicial procedure, or the fundamental requirements of natural justice; or, again, where certain statutory rules are made, (and they could have been made subject to previous publication only) by the Government or by any other authority in the exercise of a delegated authority, but they have been made in manifest and substantial breach of the statutory essentials thereof, then the rule of finality attributed to such fiats by the legislature cannot be accepted as barring the exercise of the powers of this Court under the Constitution to see whether the rules were lawfully made or not; and, it would be its privilege, nay, bounden duty to go behind this facade of finality in either case and strike down the decision or the rules as the exigencies of the case may justly require." 22. A relief to be granted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and, in opinion, where there is no flagrant breach of the rules and they appear to have been, to a very great extent, complied with, the High Court may not interfere. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Board Nagar v. Raghavendra Kripal, that- "Once Government condones the departure, the decision of the Government is rightly made final by making the notification conclusive evidence of the compliance with the requirements of the Act. It is not necessary to investigate whether a complete lack of observance of the provisions would be afforded the same protection. It is most unlikely that this would ever happen and before we pronounce our opinion we should like to see such a case." 23. Agreeing with the view expressed by the learned single Judge we hold that the Rules are valid. 24. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Rule 6 of the Rules is invalid as it gives arbitrary power to the Government for termination of the services of the employees of the Nagar Mahapalika. In our opinion there is no force in this contention. Clause (e) of Sec. 577 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam reads as follows:- "all officers and servants in the employ of the said Municipality, Improvement Trust, Development Board or local authority immediately before the appointed day shall, notwithstanding anything in Secs. 106 and 107, be officers and servants employed by the Mahapalika in a temporary capacity under this Act and for so long as they are not appointed to posts created under this Act. or finally absorbed in any centralised service created by rules made under Sec. 112-A or their services do not stand determined in accordance with such rules, they shall draw the same salaries and "allowances and, except as otherwise provided in such rules, be subject to the same conditions of service to which they were entitled or were subject immediately before the appointed day." 25. It is, therefore, clear that a provision had been made in the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam itself that the servants in the employ of the erstwhile Municipality would be considered to be temporary and liable to termination in pursuance of the Rules made under Sec. 112-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. It is, therefore, clear that a provision had been made in the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam itself that the servants in the employ of the erstwhile Municipality would be considered to be temporary and liable to termination in pursuance of the Rules made under Sec. 112-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Rule 6, therefore, does not go beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act. It cannot be considered to be had because this rule appears to have been made in public interest and provides for not taking in the newly constituted centralised services those who were not found suitable. 26. The plea that compensation provided under the Rules was illusory has no substance. A provision has been made on uniform basis for the payment of compensation to all those employees whose services are terminated under the Rules. Vijay Kumar Agarwal (the appellant in Special Appeal No. 31 of 1971) was merely a temporary employee and could have no grievance. The rates of compensation for temporary employee are no less favourable than even the compensation payable for permanent employees of Municipal Boards on termination of their services. 27. The change of date for final absorption in the centralised services from 31st March, 1967 to 31st August, 1967, was perfectly in order and in pursuance of the powers granted under Sec. 19 of the U.P. Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966. 28. Now we proceed to consider the case of each appellant separately with regard to the pleas raised by him in his petition under Article 226 of the - Constitution. Vijay Kumar Agarwal (appellant in Special Appeal no. 31 of 1971). 29. The State Government had issued a letter (Annexure 5) for constituting Divisional Committees for screening the cases of the provisionally absorbed employees in the Centralised Services, and it had further laid down the criteria for making recommendation by the Divisional Committees about suitability or unsuitability by means of the letter (Annexure 5), dated 23rd February, 1967. Only those employees of the Municipal Board were to be absorbed in the centralised Services of the Mahapalika, whose record of ...................... service was above average. The records of service of the employees was, therefore, to be examined by the Divisional Committees before making any recommendation for their absorption in the centralised services and only those employees, whose record was considered to be above average, were to be so absorbed. service was above average. The records of service of the employees was, therefore, to be examined by the Divisional Committees before making any recommendation for their absorption in the centralised services and only those employees, whose record was considered to be above average, were to be so absorbed. It was alleged by the petitioner (appellant) in his affidavit that his work was good. On the other hand, it was stated in the counter affidavit that his work was not upto the marl, and he had also been warned twice by two different Nagar Abhiyantas. The petitioner (appellant) admitted to have received one warning only and stated that he had submitted an explanation. As regards the adverse entries existing in his character roll, the contention of the petitioner (appellant) was that they had not been communicated to him and he had, therefore, no opportunity to submit his explanation with regard to those adverse entries. 30. The allegation that the adverse entries mentioned in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit (except the entry made by Sri O.P. Agarwal, Nagar Abhiyanta) had not been communicated to the petitioner (appellant) was not refused. The entries made in the character roll were, however, reproduced to meet the allegation of the petitioner that he had worked efficiently. 31. The administrative instructions given to the Divisional Committees for judging the suitability of the candidates could have no statutory force. However, it was expected of the Divisional Committees to have acted fairly and to have adopted a uniform practice With regard to all the employees whose cases were considered by them for absorption in the Centralised Services. No allegation whatsoever was made by the petitioner (appellant) that he had in any way been discriminated against by the Divisional Committee. Then certain instructions had been issued to the Divisional Committee, it was expected to have acted according to those instructions. No allegation was made by the petitioner (appellant) to show that the Divisional Committee had not acted according to the instructions given by the Government. Since the adverse entries existing in the character roll of the petitioner (appellant) had not been communicated to him, it was expected of the Divisional Committee not to have taken them into consideration. No allegation was made by the petitioner (appellant) to show that the Divisional Committee had not acted according to the instructions given by the Government. Since the adverse entries existing in the character roll of the petitioner (appellant) had not been communicated to him, it was expected of the Divisional Committee not to have taken them into consideration. There is nothing in the petition of this appellant to show that any adverse entry had also been considered by the Divisional Committee to judge him to be unsuitable for absorption in the Centralised Services. 32. It is significant to note that the Government instructions provided that in the case of any adverse entry existing in the character roll of any employee being considered, it was incumbent that he should be asked about it at the time of his interview, so that he may offer his explanation to the Divisional Committee. The averment made by the petitioner that he had not been asked by the Divisional Committee. The average made by the petitioner that he had not been asked by the Divisional Committee about any adverse entry existing in his character roll at the time he was interview clearly indicates that in all probability the Divisional Committee did not take into consideration the adverse entries which might have existed in the character roll of the petitioner(appellant) and about which he had not been informed. 33. The petitioner was a temporary servant of the Nagar Mahapalika. The post which he was occupying was included in the list of Centralised Services by the Divisional Committee, and, therefore, he could not be absorbed. 34. There is no force in his appeal, and it must be dismissed. B.N. Uffa (appellant in Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971) 35. This appellant had been confirmed as an accounts clerk in the service of the Municipal Board of Lucknow. The post of an accounts clerk was not included in the used Services all of which have been enumerated in rule 3 of the Rules. B.N. Uffa (appellant in Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971) 35. This appellant had been confirmed as an accounts clerk in the service of the Municipal Board of Lucknow. The post of an accounts clerk was not included in the used Services all of which have been enumerated in rule 3 of the Rules. However, in the year 1965 he was appointed as Assistant Superintendent under the provisions of Sec. 108 if the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and was working as such when he received the order dated 27th August, 1967, passed under rule 6(2) of the Rules stating that he was not found suitable for final absorption and his services will stand determined from the date of the service of the order. The objections of the petitioner (appellant) are- (1) the impugned order cast a stigma on his career and is, therefore, a punishment; (2) the directions given by the Government in their letter (Annexure 5) lying down the criteria for the Divisional Committee for making recommendations about suitability or unsuitability of the employees were not followed; (3) the adverse entries had not been communicated to him; (4) he was not interviewed by the Divisional Committee; (5) his substantive post being that of an accounts clerk and not included in any of the Centralised Services mentioned in rule 3 of the Rules, he could not have been dismissed under sub-rule (2) of rule 6 of the Rules even though he was found suitable for being absorbed as an Assistant Superintendent, which was a centralised post under the Rules. 36. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned order casts an stigma on his career and is, therefore, a punishment, and that the principles of natural justice have been violated in his case without substance. The order passed in his case merely shows that he was not found suitable for absorption in the Centralised Services. The question of casting any stigma on the career of the petitioner (appellant), therefore, does not arise. It cannot be said that rules of natural justice were not observed because, as will appear from the following paragraph, his unsuitability was determined on the basis of the record which was produced before Divisional Committee. 37. It is clear from the record that adverse entries made against this appellant were not communicated to him. It cannot be said that rules of natural justice were not observed because, as will appear from the following paragraph, his unsuitability was determined on the basis of the record which was produced before Divisional Committee. 37. It is clear from the record that adverse entries made against this appellant were not communicated to him. However, there is nothing in the writ petition from which it can be inferred that these adverse entries had been taken into consideration at the time the Divisional Committee examined his case. As observed in the connected appeal, the Divisional Committee was expected to have followed that procedure only which it was required to follow, and in the absence of averments to the contrary it has to be presumed that it had followed the instructions given to it. In doing so it was bound not to have considered the adverse entries which had not been communicated to the present appellant. Once the Divisional Committee had made up its mind not to consider the adverse entries made against the present appellant, it was by no means incumbent, under the instructions given by the Government, to have called him for interview. The recommendation whether he was fit for absorption in the Centralised Services or not could have been made on the basis of his past record. 38. The Divisional Committee was bound to have called the appellant for interview provided the entries in his character roll were less than three. There is nothing in the writ petition or on the record to indicate that the entries in the character roll of this appellant were Tess than three. 39. In the circumstances no irregularity could be established and the recommendation of the Divisional Committee that B. N.Uffa be not absorbed in the Centralised Services of the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, did not suffer from any infirmity. The order passed on the basis of that recommendation cannot be struck down. 40. The last and the most important contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant (B. N. Uffa) should have been allowed to work as accounts clerk a post which was not included in the Centralised Services under Rule 3 of the Rules and against which he had been confirmed by the erstwhile Municipal Board, Lucknow, in the year 1957. It is evident that the Centralised Services Rules would not apply to the post of an accounts clerk which B.N. Uffa had held in a Substantive capacity in the erstwhile Municipal Board, Lucknow. Clause (e) of Sec. 577 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam provided that- "all officers and servants in the employ of the said Municipality, Improvement Trust, Development Board or local authority immediately before the appointed day shall, notwithstanding anything in Secs. 106 and 107, be officers and servants employed by the Mahapalika in a temporary capacity under this Act, and for so long as they are not appointed to posts created under this Act or finally absorbed in any central service created by rules made under Sec. 112-A or their service do not stand determined in accordance with such rules, they shall draw the same salaries and allowances and, except as otherwise provided in such rules be subject to the same conditions of service to which they are entitled or were subject immediately before the appointed day." 41. B.N. Uffa was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent only in an officiating capacity under Sec. 108 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. He might have been officiating against an existing vacancy, but that will hardly he material. His substantive post was that of an accounts clerk. In view of the fact that it had been decided that he was not fit to be absorbed as an Assistant Superintendent in the Centralised Services of Nagar Mahapalika, he could not be absorbed in the Centralised Services. His services could not, however, be terminated under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 6 of the Rules for the simple reason that- (1) he had a lien on the post of accounts clerk, which was not a Centralised Service within the meaning of Rule 3 of the Rules, and (2) the mere fact that he was no considered fit to be absorbed as an Assistant Superintendent would not imply that he was not fit to be retained as an accounts clerk. In fact no decision was taken with regard to him about the question whether or not his services as an accounts clerk should be maintained, and his services were determined merely because he had been found not suitable to be absorbed in one of the Centralised Services. 42. In fact no decision was taken with regard to him about the question whether or not his services as an accounts clerk should be maintained, and his services were determined merely because he had been found not suitable to be absorbed in one of the Centralised Services. 42. The order services terminating his services (Annexure 2) reads as follows :- "On a careful examination of his case, Sri B. N. Uffa, Assistant Tax Superintendent has not been found suitable for final absorption in the U.P. Palika Centralised Services and the Governor has in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-clause (v) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, been pleased to order that the services of the said Sri B.N. Uffa shall stand determined with effect from. the date of the service of this order. He would be entitled to the compensation as provided in the said Rule." 43. The portion of this order (Annexure 2) relating to the termination of the services of the petitioner-appellant must be quashed. 44. In the result, Special Appeal No. 31 of 1971, filed by Vijay Kumar Agarwal, is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. 45. Special Appeal No. 32 of 1971 filed by B.N. Uffa is allowed in part and the portion of order dated 27th August, 1967, (Annexure 2) relating to the termination of the services of B. N. Uffa (petitioner-appellant) is quashed. The appellant will get his costs from the respondents.