Short Note : The plaintiff's case against the respondent-defendant was that his services were wrongly terminated. Hence he had filed the suit for injunction, declaration and recovery of arrears of pay. Held : The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that the services of the appellant were wrongly terminated on the basis that he was appointed by the vice-president of the council who hold no authority in that regard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the vice-president being an officer of the Municipal Council could certainly appoint any servant of the council. This Court is unable to appreciate the contention, which has no force at all. A reading of sub-section 6 of section 94 of the Municipalities Act makes it clear that the power to appoint municipal officers and servants other than those mentioned under sub-section 4 shall vest in the Standing Committee. The appellant does not fall in the category of servants and officers mentioned under sub-section 4 being only a clerk. Admittedly, the appointment of the appellant was not by the Standing Committee. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly held that the appointment of the appellant was wholly illegal being made by the vice president without any authority in the matter. Appeal dismissed.