Short Note : 1. The petitioner was appointed Accountant on 4tb February 1964 by the President of the Municipal Council, Khairagarh. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the Municipal Council on 12th February 1964. The appointment was purely temporary. The post of accountant was abolished by the Municipal Council on 23rd April 1971. By order, dated 24th April 1971, the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 25th April 1971 as no longer required and he was paid a month's salary in lieu of notice. Held : The post of Accountant falls under section 94 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 which says that the appointment of Revenue Officer, Accounts Officer, Sanitary Inspector, Overseer, Revenue Inspector and Accountant shall be subject to the confirmation by the State Government and no such post or the post of any other officer or servant, as may he specified by the State Government in this behalf, shall be created or abolished and no alteration in the emoluments thereof shall be made without the previous approval of the State Government, and every appointment to and dismissal from, such post shall be subject to a like approval. It is clear from section 94 (4) that the post of Accountant can be created only with the approval of the State Government and appointment to such post can also be made only with the approval of the State Government In the instant case, neither the creation of the post of Accountant nor the appointment of the petitioner to the post was with the confirmation or approval of the State Government. The argument of the petitioner that his services could not be terminated by the Municipal Council without the approval of the State Government will not apply here because the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Accountant and the creation of the post, were both without the approval of the State Government. It cannot be said that the petitioner was validly appointed or that the post, which he occupied, was validly created because there was no approval for the creation of the post and for the appointment of the petitioner to that post. As the petitioner's appointment itself was invalid, the Municipal Council was competent to terminate his appointment without reference to the State Government. Jagmohan Singh v. Boara of Revenue M. P and others, 1978 (1) WN 133 relied on. 2. As the petitioner's appointment itself was invalid, the Municipal Council was competent to terminate his appointment without reference to the State Government. Jagmohan Singh v. Boara of Revenue M. P and others, 1978 (1) WN 133 relied on. 2. The petitioner's contention is that even if there was no approval of the State Government for the creation of and appointment to the post of Accountant, the petitioner became validly appointed after coming into force of the Rules framed under section 95 of the Act These rules are called the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1967. The appointed date as given in Rule 2 (1) is 1st of April 1964. This Court has gone through all the relevant rules and is of opinion that the Rules are of no help to the petitioner 'Existing Employee' is defined by Rule 2 (4) to mean an employee of Municipal Council in its service immediately before the appointed date It stands to reason that an employee who was not validly appointed could not be an existing employee within this definition. 'Existing post' is defined by Rule 2 (5) to mean the posts duly sanctioned by the competent authority and in existence immediately before the appointed date. As the post of Accountant was not sanctified by the State Government it cannot be said that it was an "existing post" within this definition. In the circumstances, the petitioner's appointment to the post of Accountant was invalid and the Municipal Council was competent to terminate his services without taking the approval of the State Government. Petition dismissed.