ORDER S.K. Chawla, J. -- 1. The order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition Nos. 1554/90 and 1694/90. 2. All these three petitions, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the validity of appointment and continuance of Shri Suresh Jain IAS, presently Collector Hoshangabad as Chairman of Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi, and also the validity of the termination orders of the services of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners totalling 38 in these three petitions, were appointed to various class-III and class-IV posts in Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi (respondent No.1). Appointments were to the posts of Lower Division Clerks, Time-Keepers, Draftman, Accounts Officer, Revenue Inspector, Legal Adviser, Painter and a 'FOOD. Appointments were all made in the months of January and February, 1990 by the then Chairman, Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi, Shri Anil Awasthy. Then on 9th March, 1990, the duration of the term of the office of Chairmen and Members of various Town Improvement Trusts in M.P. mentioned in Schedule-I, including that of Shri Anil Awasthy, was terminated with immediate effect by a Gazette Notification issued by the State of M.P. (respondent No.3). By the same notification, the State Govt. appointed Government officials as mentioned in Schedule-II, as Chairmen of those Town Improvement Trusts by their official designations. The petitioners have filed two separate copies Annexures A-7 and A-8, of the said Gazette Notification, treating them as separate orders. It is in fact a single order, as is evident from copy R-1 filed by the respondents. So far as the Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi, was concerned, Collector, Hoshangabad was appointed as Chairman of that Trust. Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey, IAS, was the Collector of Hoshangabad when the said Govt. Notification was issued. The petitioners continued in their services during her time. Shri Suresh Jain, respondent No. 2 herein, took over as Collector, Hoshangabad in place of Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey in 3rd or 4th week of May, 1990. The services of the petitioners then came to be terminated by individual orders issued either on 6th or 7th June, 1990 by the Chief Executive Officer of the Trust under the orders of the Chairman. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were validly appointed by the then Chairman Shri Anti Awasthy in conformity with statutory rules. The services of the petitioners then came to be terminated by individual orders issued either on 6th or 7th June, 1990 by the Chief Executive Officer of the Trust under the orders of the Chairman. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were validly appointed by the then Chairman Shri Anti Awasthy in conformity with statutory rules. The termination of their services for no apparent reason was really by way of reprisal, with the change of Government at the State level. The termination were absolutely unjustified and stemmed from vindictive exercise of power with malafide intention. In fact, the services of as many as 72 employees of the Trust, including those of the petitioners, were terminated by a single stroke. The termination being malafide, illegal and opposed to law deserve to be quashed. 5. It is also the case of the petitioners that Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey was duly empowered to act as Chairman of Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi under the Government Notification dated 9th March, 1990 already referred to Shri Suresh Jain who took over from her had, however, no authority to act as Chairman of the Trust. The contention is that merely because the previous Collector was notified as Chairman, the successor Collector did not ipso facto become the Chairman. There was no fresh notification in favour of Shri Suresh Jain. He is, therefore, a mere usurper in the office of the Chairman. A declaration is sought in this regard with direction to restrain him from functioning any more as Chairman. 6. In the return filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which was adopted by State of M.P., respondent No.3, the stand taken is that as many as 72 appointments, 'including those of the petitioners, were made by the then Chairman Anti Awasthy, in flagrant violation of the statutory rules. Those appointments were made by way of distribution of largesse and favours to favourites. There existed no sanctioned posts against the appointments made. The establishment charges of the Trust had touched 43% of the annual total income, when the norm is that such charges should not exceed 8%. There was no need to keep the petitioners in employment. The termination of their services was done in accordance with the conditions of their service, because their services were no longer required. The establishment charges of the Trust had touched 43% of the annual total income, when the norm is that such charges should not exceed 8%. There was no need to keep the petitioners in employment. The termination of their services was done in accordance with the conditions of their service, because their services were no longer required. The financial condition of the Trust is still not good and it is not contemplated to appoint other persons in place of the petitioners. The terminations were not at all influenced by the change of the Government but were done in good faith by the Chairman, respondent No. 2 Shri Suresh Jain. He is a validly appointed Chairman of Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi, in his capacity as Collector, Hoshangabad, in the same way as his predecessor Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey was appointed in her official capacity. 7. It is not disputed before us that the petitioners were given appointments on their applications made directly to the then Chairman Shri Anti Awasthy. It is also not disputed that names of candidates were not requisitioned from the local Employment Exchange nor vacancies notified in newspapers before appointment were given to the petitioners. It is proper to mention here that there exist statutory rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of the servants of the Development Authorities including Town Improvement Trusts. These rules are Madhya Pradesh Development Authority Services (Officers and Servants) Recruitment Rules, 1987. Rule 6 of the Rules may be reproduced below: "6. (1) Whenever the Authority was to fill up any post of Class-III or Class-IV the names of the candidates shall be requisitioned from the local Employment Exchange and in the case of Class-I and Class-II the number of the vacancies shall be intimated to the State Government. The vacancies shall be notified in one Hindi and one another paper having Statewide circulation. The Development Authority shall notify the vacancies to be filled by it in one Hindi and one another newspaper. (2) The Appointing Authority shall be competent to consider the applications directly received in the office of the authority for such vacant posts. (3) The list of approved candidates shall be prepared in order of merit for such posts as appointing authority may consider necessary and as far as possible vacancies shall be filled from amongst such approved candidates in the order in which names stand on the list. (3) The list of approved candidates shall be prepared in order of merit for such posts as appointing authority may consider necessary and as far as possible vacancies shall be filled from amongst such approved candidates in the order in which names stand on the list. It will be seen that sub-rule (1) of rule 6 requires that whenever the Authority has to fill up any post of Class-III or Class-IV, the names of candidates have to be requisitioned from the local Employment Exchange. It is further necessary that the vacancies should be notified in one Hindi newspaper and one another newspaper. The requirements of sub-rule (1) do not admit of any exception. Sub-rule (2) however, provides that the Appointing Authority shall be competent to consider applications directly received in the office of the authority for vacant posts. It is clear that the Appointing Authority is thereby enabled to consider applications of candidates received directly, although their names may not have been sent by the Employment Exchange. The effect is that not only candidates whose names are sent by Employment Exchange but also whose applications are received directly, may be considered for appointment. The provisions of sub-rule (2) cannot be read to mean that even without calling the names from Employment Exchange and without notifying the vacancies in newspapers, applications from candidates may be received directly and appointments given to them, depriving other persons, who may be equally or more competent, from competing for the posts. If the appointments are made in that clandestine manner, that would also be in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. It is evident that by giving appointments to the petitioners by receiving their applications directly, without calling for names from the Employment Exchange and without notifying the vacancies in the newspapers, the salutary provisions of rule 6(1) ibid were flouted. Such appointments to public posts under the veil of secrecy could never be justified. 9. It was also not disputed before us that the selection of the petitioners was not made by a Selection Committee although required by rule 7(b) of the said Rules. It cannot further be doubted that the Chairman did not obtain prior approval of the Trust while appointing the petitioners, though such prior approval was necessary under rule 8(2) of the said Rules. It cannot further be doubted that the Chairman did not obtain prior approval of the Trust while appointing the petitioners, though such prior approval was necessary under rule 8(2) of the said Rules. In our view, all the appointments of the petitioners were made in utter disregard of the statutory rules and were absolutely illegal. 10. It is distressing to find that some of the appointments were made against all norms of propriety and rectitude. The respondents have filed certain records of the Trust relating to some appointments in question, which are photo copies. From photo copies R-10-A to R-10-C it appears that petitioner Sanjay Upadhyaya figuring as petitioner No. 6 in M.P. No. 1554/90 made an application for the post of Accountant on 1.3.1990. The then Chairman Shri Anil Awasthy passed an undated order that certain persons, including petitioner Sanjay Upadhyaya, be appointed as ad hoc Time-keepers. But order actually issued to petitioner Sanjay Upadhyaya was that he was appointed adhoc Lower Division Clerk. The appointment order is dated 11.1.1990. How could a person be appointed on 11.1.1990 beforehand, when his application was made nearly 1½ months thereafter i.e. on 1.3.1990? How could he be appointed as a Lower Division Clerk when he had applied for the post of Accountant and the Chairman himself had directed for his appointment as Time-keeper? 11. Again, Ajay Singh Rajpoot, figuring as petitioner No. 8 in M.P. No. 1554/90 made an application for a post in which the name of the post applied for was left blank. Even that application was undated. But the seal of the Trust appears on the application from which it appears that application was made on 19.2.1990. Yet, the appointment in his favour was made much earlier i.e. on 19.1.1990. This is evident from documents R-10-D and R-10-E filed by the respondents. 12. So also petitioner. No. 14 Kailash Kumar Pandya figuring in M.P. No. 1633/90 made an undated application for being appointed as a Legal Adviser on regular basis (Annexure R-9-A). Previously, he was appointed Legal Adviser on contract basis for two years. The office wrote a note-sheet dated 8.3.1990 stating that the Chairman had directed for the appointment of Shri Pandya on regular pay scale and so he may be appointed on that basis w.e.f. 1.3.1990 (Annexure R-9-C). Previously, he was appointed Legal Adviser on contract basis for two years. The office wrote a note-sheet dated 8.3.1990 stating that the Chairman had directed for the appointment of Shri Pandya on regular pay scale and so he may be appointed on that basis w.e.f. 1.3.1990 (Annexure R-9-C). He was given appointment on regular basis as Legal Adviser on regular pay scale by order dated 22.2.1990 which was to take effect from 1.3.1990 (Annexure R-9-B). How could note-sheet have been written on a subsequent date i.e. on 8.3.1990 and appointment order issued at an earlier date i.e. on 22.2.1990? The date of the appointment order (Annexure R-9-B) appears to have been also overwritten by changing it from 22.3.1990 to 22.2.1990. If the appointment was made on 22.3.1990, which appears to most probable, because note-sheet was written on 8.3.1990, the question is, could that appointment have been made when the appointment of the then Chairman Shri Anil Awasthy himself was terminated by the Government on 9.3.1990? It may further be stated that the post of Legal Adviser is not even mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rules of 1987, already referred. The appointment was, thus, to a post which was not envisaged by the Rules. 13. There is one more instance. With respect to petitioner No. 12 Shri Prakash Lahari Shrivastava in M.P. No. 1633/90, the Head Clerk of the office of the Trust wrote a note-sheet that the candidate was above 30 years of age and, therefore, did not fulfil the criterion about age (Annexure R-7). Rule 9 of the Rules in question prescribes 30 years as the maximum age. The rule does not envisage of any relaxation with respect to a general candidate, to which category the petitioner in question belonged. No relaxation with respect to age could have been given to the petitioner. Yet, he was appointed even though he was overage. 14. Documents (Annexures R-11-A to R-11-C) have been filed by the respondents in regard to a candidate named Banwarilal Badkur who does not figure as petitioner in any of these petitions. He made an application that he may be given appointment to any vacant post. The Chairman vide his endorsement on the application asked if the applicant could be appointed as Time-keeper. Somebody from the office wrote on the application that the candidate might be appointed as Chairman. He made an application that he may be given appointment to any vacant post. The Chairman vide his endorsement on the application asked if the applicant could be appointed as Time-keeper. Somebody from the office wrote on the application that the candidate might be appointed as Chairman. The candidate was actually appointed as Lower Division Clerk by order dated 19.1.1990. There is overwriting with respect to date on the appointment order and it is possible that the true date was 19.2.1990. This was, thus, as instance where a candidate made an application for any kind of post, who was proposed by the office to be appointed as a Chairman, about whom the Chairman asked if he could be appointed as Time-keeper but who was actually appointed to much higher post of L.D.C. The application of the candidates was dated 22.2.1990 but appointment was given to him beforehand either on 19.1.990 or 19.2.1990. 15. It is not disputed before us that appointments, as many as 72, were made by the then Chairman Shri Anil Awasthy in the short period of two months of January and February, 1990, which was politically a twilight period. Considering the period when the appointments were made and the manner in which they were made, leave no room for doubt that power was abused without any regard for financial burden placed on the Trust, which was already in financially straitened condition. The appointments were all illegal and in violation of the statutory rules. They could have been cancelled without any ado by competent authority. In the present case, instead of cancelling the orders, terminations in terms of the conditions of service were done. They are not open to challenge, if the authority doing the terminations was the competent authority. 16. This brings us to the next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was contended that Shri Suresh Jain, presently Collector, Hoshangabad, at whose instance the terminations were done, was not competent to act as Chairman of the Trust under Government notification dated 9th March, 1990 (Annex. A/8). 16. This brings us to the next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was contended that Shri Suresh Jain, presently Collector, Hoshangabad, at whose instance the terminations were done, was not competent to act as Chairman of the Trust under Government notification dated 9th March, 1990 (Annex. A/8). The Government notification in question may be extracted and reproduced below: e/; izns"k "kklu vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx Øekad ,Q-7@¼4½@32@90 Hkksiky] fnukad 9 ekpZ] 90 vkns"k 2- jkT; "kklu ds }kjk e/; izns"k uxj lq/kkj U;kl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5¼1½ ds varxZr iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vuqlwph&nks esa n"kkZ, vuqlkj dks uxj lq/kkj U;klksa dk v/;{k fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA vuqlwph&nks Øekad uxj lq/kkj U;kl dk uke euksuhr v/;{k 2- bVkjlh uxj lq/kkj U;kl dysDVj] gks"kaxkckn e-iz- ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns"kkuqlkj vkj-ds- xks;y] la;qDr lfpo e/; izns"k "kklu vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkxA 17. The argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Collector, Hoshangabad was appointed as Chairman of Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi. The appointment was not by name but only by official designation. At the time when the Government notification was issued, Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey was holding the post of Collector Hoshangabad. She validly acted as Chairman of Town Improvement Trust, Itarsi, since Collector Hoshangabad was appointed Chairman of the Trust by the Government notification. Yet, Shri Suresh Jain, who took over from her, had no authority to act as Chairman since there was no fresh notification in his favour. This argument appears to have been put forward only for the reason that no termination were done in the time of Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey whereas such terminations occurred in the time of the present Collector. If Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey validly acted as Chairman of the Trust under the above Government notification, by the same token Shri Suresh Jain must be said to be validly acting as Chairman. If appointment by official designation was valid in the case of Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey, it must be held to be equally valid with respect to the present Collector; Shri Suresh Jain. For that matter, any Collector Hoshangabad who takes charge would be validly acting as Chairman of the Trust. 18. If appointment by official designation was valid in the case of Smt. Ajita Bajpai-Pandey, it must be held to be equally valid with respect to the present Collector; Shri Suresh Jain. For that matter, any Collector Hoshangabad who takes charge would be validly acting as Chairman of the Trust. 18. Departing from the stand taken in the petition, Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioners, tried to advance an argument that the law contemplated appointment of Chairman by name alone and since the appointment in the present case made by the State Government was by official designation, it was invalid. Reliance was placed on sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. It will be proper to reproduce these provisions: Section 5. Constitution of Trust. The Trust shall consist of the following trustees, namely:-- (a) a Chairman who shall be appointed by the State Government; (b) the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation or the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council, as the case may be; (c) an officer of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Madhya Pradesh, to be appointed by the State Government; (d) an officer of the Revenue Department, Madhya Pradesh to be appointed by the State Government; (e) an officer of the Public Health Engineering Department, Madhya Pradesh, to be appointed by the State Government; (f) three other persons to be appointed by the State Government. Section 6. Term of office of the Chairman and Trustees: (1) The names of the Chairman and Trustees shall be notified in the Gazette. (2) The term of the office of the Chairman and other Trustees shall be such and commence from such date as may be prescribed. (3) The person ceasing. to be a Chairman or Trustees by reason of the expiry of his term of office shall be eligible for reappointment. 19. The provision of section 5(a) would show that what is needed is an order of the State Government appointing Chairman of the Trust. There is no further requirement in the provision that the order should be even notified in the Gazette or that the appointment should be by name and not by official designation. Section 6(2) would show that the term of the office of the Chairman and other Trustees shall be such and commence from such date as may be prescribed. There is no further requirement in the provision that the order should be even notified in the Gazette or that the appointment should be by name and not by official designation. Section 6(2) would show that the term of the office of the Chairman and other Trustees shall be such and commence from such date as may be prescribed. Even there no notification about what is prescribed is needed. No doubt, section 6(1) requires that the names of the Chairman and the Trustees shall be notified in the Gazette. It is to be noted that it is not laid down therein that the term of the office of the Chairman shall not commence until his name is notified in the Gazette. The object and purpose behind the provision of sub-section (1) of section 6 appears to be that the names shall be notified so that there may be no difficulty about the identity of the Chairman and Trustees of a particular improvement Trust in case they are not Government officials holding any responsible post but private individuals whose identity may be known only by notifying their names. But where appointment is done by official designation, as was done in the present case, the object and purpose is served as there might be no difficulty in identifying the person presently holding the office. In that situation, the requirement of section 6(1) that the names shall be notified in the Gazette may well be construed to be directory. We are, however, not required to express .any concluded opinion on the point. In any case, it is not the requirement of that provision that until the names are notified in the Gazette, the appointment would not be effective or valid or that the term of the office shall not commence. As already stated, the only requirement of law under section 5(a) is that the Government should pass ail order appointing a Chairman. It may do so either by name or as well by official designation. In the special circumstances of this particular case, .we see no infirmity in the above Government notification appointing inter-alia Collector, Hoshangabad as Chairman of Itarsi Town. Improvement Trust. It may do so either by name or as well by official designation. In the special circumstances of this particular case, .we see no infirmity in the above Government notification appointing inter-alia Collector, Hoshangabad as Chairman of Itarsi Town. Improvement Trust. We also see no reason why any officer holding the post of Collector Hoshangabad for the time being cannot validly act as Chairman of Itarsi Town Improvement Trust, particularly when the learned counsel for the pentioners does not challenge the similar appointment of. Smt. Ajita Bajpai Pandey, the then Collector. If her appointment as Chairman by designation is accepted to be valid, there is no reason to call in question similar appointment of the successor Collector to be the Chairman. 20. For the reasons stated above, we find no substance in these petitions. All the three petitions are dismissed. The stay granted by this Court by order dated 20.7.1990 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.