JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from Annexure 2 that respondent No. 3 had been nominated as a member of the Board on 10.12.1988 under the first proviso lo Section 9 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Petitioner's grievance is that oath had not been administered to respondent No. 3 by the District Magistrate as required under Section 43-D of the Municipalities Act Sub-Section (4) of Section 43-D of the Municipalities Act, interalia, provides that the District Magistrate shall convene a meeting of the Board for the purpose of administration of oath or affirmation in accordance with the rules prescribed under the Act. Obviously respondent No. 3 had not attended that meeting convened by the District Magistrate for the purpose of administration of oath to the elected members of the Board Rule 5 of die Rule regarding the convening of meeting of the Board forth administration of oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution of India for Chairman/President and Members of the Board's provides that the oath or affirmation to a President or member who fails or is otherwise unable to attend the meeting convened by the District Magistrate shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) f of Section 43-D, be administered oath or affirmation at a subsequent meeting of the Board by the person presiding at such meeting. The meetings for election which was r held on 12.12.1988 was presided over by the President who administered oath to respondent No. 3. In the circumstances, the election cannot be said to be irregular, The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.