JUDGMENT 1. THE present petition arises out of an order dated December 29, 1981 passed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. Respondent No. 1, Abhilash Kumar Saxena, was appointed as a clerk in the Nagar Palika, Hasanpur, District Moradabad. His services were terminated by the President of the Board vide an order dated September 12/18, 1975. Against this order a representation was made to the President of the Board. In the meantime the said order of termination was withdrawn. The respondent No. 1 was allowed to work in his post and the period of probation was extended for three months more. 2. ON the representation of the respondent No. 1, the President was pleased to pass an order confirming him with effect from January 1, 1976. In the meantime a new President came into office who by an order dated May 18, 1978 had cancelled the order of confirmation dated January 1, 1976. In addition to this he passed another order dated November 10, 1976 terminating the services of respondent No. 1. An appeal was preferred against the said order which was rejected by the Commissioner of the Division. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner, he preferred a Claim Petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, praying that a declaration be issued that the order of de-confirmation dated May 18, 1976 and the order of termination dated November 10, 1976 are illegal and void. It was further prayed that he be declared to be a confirmed and permanent employee of the Board and to have continued on his post as before and was also entitled to all its benefits and continuity of service in the Board. The said Claim Petition was contested by the Board on the ground that the services of respondent No. 1 were initially terminated but he was allowed to continue to work and his probationary period was extended only for three months more. The order of confirmation which was passed on January 1, 1976 was based on wrong facts and as such the President by an order dated May 18, 1976 cancelled the said order and de-confirmed the claimant. It was further stated that the order of de-confirmation was passed on the basis of Rule 9 of the U. P. Municipal Servants Appeals Rules, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. It was further stated that the order of de-confirmation was passed on the basis of Rule 9 of the U. P. Municipal Servants Appeals Rules, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The claim Petition was, however, allowed on December 29, 1981. Feeling aggrieved, the Nagar Palika has preferred the present writ petition. 3. THE main question to be considered in this petition is whether the order of de-confirmation of respondent No. 1 was bad in law. Sri S. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the appeal filed by Abdul Rahim, who was a Head Clerk, was pending and in his place Hari Krishna Saxena was promoted. In place of Sri Saxena, the respondent No. 1 was appointed to officiate as a clerk. 4. I have gone through the record of the case. The petitioner has failed to show that any departmental appeal was pending before the commissioner of the Division in respect of the post in which the respondent No. 1 was appointed either at the time of appointment or at the time of confirmation. In view of this fact it cannot be said that the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules are applicable in this case. For a ready reference Rule 9 is being quoted as under:- "9. The post vacated by a servant, who is dismissed or removed from service, shall not be filled up substantially until the expiry of period of appeal laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the appeal, if any preferred against any such order has been finally rejected. If any appointment on the post is made on a temporary basis, during the aforesaid period, it shall be reviewed in the light of the orders passed on appeals unless terminated earlier. " Once it is established that Rule 9 becomes inapplicable, the order of de-confirmation becomes bad. It was mandatory on the part of the municipal Board to have issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 1 before passing the order of de-confirmation. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given to him. There was clear denial of principle of natural justice. Thus the order of de-confirmation dated May 18, 1976 is wholly illegal. 5. ONCE the order dated May 18, 1976 is set aside, the respondent No. 1 becomes a confirmed employee. 1 before passing the order of de-confirmation. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given to him. There was clear denial of principle of natural justice. Thus the order of de-confirmation dated May 18, 1976 is wholly illegal. 5. ONCE the order dated May 18, 1976 is set aside, the respondent No. 1 becomes a confirmed employee. It was an arbitrary action of the board to have terminated his services treating him to be a temporary employee. The order of termination dated November 10, 1976 is also illegal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the orders of termination and de-confirmation on illegal are upheld. I find no merit in this petition. 6. IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition Dismissed.