JUDGMENT : Hari Swarup, J. This petition is directed against the order of termination of the Petitioner's services. The Petitioner was employed as a 'Bakshi' in the Town Area Amethi by an order passed by the Chairman of the Committee on November 29, 1972. According to the counter-affidavit, the services of the Petitioner were terminated with effect from 8-12-1974. In the writ petition it was stated that the termination order had not been communicated to the Petitioner but that he learnt from a letter of the District Magistrate that his services had been terminated by the Chairman with effect from 8-12-1974. We accordingly proceed to determine if the termination order was invalid. 2. According to the Petitioner he was appointed permanently and as such he could be removed only by following the procedure given in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The procedure u/s 10(2) had admittedly been not followed, The Petitioner has filed a copy of the order in which it is mentioned that he was appointed permanently. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and that it appeared that the Petitioner had changed the word Asthai (temporary) into Sthai (permanent). The question is thus a disputed question of fact. We, accordingly, proceed to examine the provisions of the Act for determining whether the Petitioner could be deemed to be permanently appointed. 3. Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 are relevant for the purposes of this case. Section 9 of the Act provides that the committee shall prepare an 'establishment list' of the permanent staff of tax collectors and other servants necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The post of Bakshi which the Petitioner was holding was a post in this establishment list. Section 10 of the Act provides for appointment and control of permanent staff. It reads: (1) The chairman shall appoint the permanent staff prescribed in the establishment list, subject in the case of the bakshi to the approval of the Prescribed Authority or if none is appointed the District Magistrate. (2) the Chairman may fine, suspend or dismiss any member of the permanent staff so appointed,...case of the dismissal of any member of the staff whose pay exceeds Rs. (2) the Chairman may fine, suspend or dismiss any member of the permanent staff so appointed,...case of the dismissal of any member of the staff whose pay exceeds Rs. 30 a month to confirmation by the Prescribed Authority or if none is appointed the District Magistrate, who shall give the member of the staff who has been so dismissed an opportunity of representing his case. Section 11 deals with the appointment and control of temporary staff. It provides- The committee may appoint such temporary staff as it may require to supplement the permanent staff on such remuneration as it may think proper. Section 12 prohibits the appointment of servants and employees except in the manner prescribed by Sections 9, 10 and 11. 4. Section 10 is thus the provision which deals with the appointment 'of a bakshi' as a permanent employee. The Chairman has the power to make the appointment subject to the approval of the District Magistrate. In the present case, there was no assertion in the petition that the appointment had been made after the approval of the District Magistrate or even that the appointment was subsequently approved by the District Magistrate. An application for amendment was, however, filed and along with it a copy of a document was filed showing that the District Magistrate had passed an order directing the Petitioner to be put under probation for one year and for putting up the case about his approval after a year. The authenticity of this document also is denied by the Respondents. It has been asserted by the Chairman that such a letter was never received. In any case, we proceed to decide the present controversy on the assumption that such a letter was written by the District Magistrate. The words of the letter do not indicate the approval of the appointment of the Petitioner as a permanent Bakshi. Impliedly it means the not according of, atleast for the time being, the approval, because the question of approval was to be put up for consideration after a year. It cannot therefore be said that the District Magistrate had given approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Bakshi on the permanent post. The Petitioner's appointment cannot, therefore, be deemed to be as of a permanent incumbent on the post. 5. It cannot therefore be said that the District Magistrate had given approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Bakshi on the permanent post. The Petitioner's appointment cannot, therefore, be deemed to be as of a permanent incumbent on the post. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as temporary appointment can be made only u/s 11 of the Act and as the appointment had been made not on the supplementary post, even though the committee had passed the resolution regarding appointment, it must be deemed to be a permanent appointment. We are unable to see any logic in this contention because a permanent appointment of a Bakshi is subject to the approval of the District Magistrate. It is not understandable why an appointment, not covered by Section 11, must necessarily be a permanent appointment. 6. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that in view of Section 12 of the Act the appointment must be deemed to be a permanent appointment because there is no provision permitting the appointment of a Bakshi temporarily by the Chairman. If this argument is to be accepted, the result will be that the Petitioner could not have been appointed temporarily by the Chairman and the appointment of the Petitioner will have to be deemed to be not made in accordance with law. 7. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide in the present case whether the Chairman, in exercise of the powers u/s 10, could make temporary appointments or not, because if he could not make the temporary appointment, the Petitioner's appointment will not be justified under any provision of the Act; and if he could make such an appointment, the appointment of the Petitioner will be deemed to be a temporary appointment. 8. Nothing has been shown as to why the Chairman could not terminate the services of the Petitioner if he were not a permanent employee. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 is obviously not be attracted because the Petitioner was not a permanent employee. The order terminating the Petitioner's services cannot, accordingly, be quashed. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs.