JUDGMENT - S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, J. :---By this petition the petitioner seeks relief of having the Order bearing No. ADM-SEC-2-Establishment-5-955 dated 25th February, 1985 passed by the Administrator, Sholapur Municipal Corporation quashed. 2. In the year 1969, the petitioner passed Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Examination from Poona University. For a year thereafter, the petitioner worked in a private firm. On 24th October, 1970, the petitioner was appointed as an Overseer by the Municipal Corporation of the City of Sholapur, the 1st respondent herein, which post was equated with the post of Junior Engineer. For a period of 3 years from 1973, the petitioner worked as Land and Estate Officer of the 1st respondent. For about four years from 1981, the petitioner hold charge as Assistant Engineer in various departments of the 1st respondent. The petitioner has received due increments and promotions from the time of his appointment as Overseer with the 1st respondent in the year 1969. 3. By its advertisement issued on 22nd July, 1982, the 1st respondent advertised the post of a City Engineer. The said advertisement mentioned the pay scale and qualification for the post of City Engineer. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for being appointed to the post of City Engineer. On 8th June, 1984 interviews took place. The Selection Board prepared the Select List on merits and the petitioner was placed at the top of the List. The said List was submitted by the then Administrator to the 1st respondent and was recorded in a Resolution of the 1st respondent on 11th June, 1984. The 1st respondent decided to appoint the petitioner as City Engineer and on 15th June, 1984, the Administrator of the 1st respondent issued the order appointing the petitioner to the Post of City Engineer under the provisions of section 45(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, the Act). The said order was sent by the 1st respondent to the State Government, the 3rd respondent herein, for confirmation. 4. It appears that on 25th June, 1984, the Sholapur Municipal Staff Association and others filed Writ Petition No. 2522 of 1984 challenging the petitioners appointment as a City Engineer. The said petition was ultimately dismissed for default. As per the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act, the appointment of the petitioner as City Engineer required confirmation of the State Government. The said petition was ultimately dismissed for default. As per the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act, the appointment of the petitioner as City Engineer required confirmation of the State Government. By its letter bearing No. UD-SMC-1384-1429-UD-22 dated 16th February, 1985, the 3rd respondent informed the 1st respondent that the appointment of the petitioner as City Engineer was not acceptable. By the impugned Order dated 25th February, 1985 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was removed from the post of City Engineer. The said Order dated 25th February, 1985, has been challenged in this writ petition. 5. According to the 3rd respondent, as per the Government Resolution dated 30th November, 1965 prescribing the qualifications and experience required for the appointment of a City Engineer, it was necessary that the candidate should be a graduate in Civil Engineering or holder of an equivalent degree of an Indian or Foreign University preferably having corporate membership of recognised Engineering Institution and must have 10 years practical experience in a superior or administrative post of the Government local body or engineering concern of constructional works and as the petitioner did not possess the requisite 10 years experience, the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as a City Engineer by the 1st respondent. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, an affidavit of one J.K. Nathani, Desk Officer, Urban Development, Mantralaya, Bombay affirmed on 7th September, 1995 has been filed. In the said affidavit, it is in terms admitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Overseer of the 1st respondent and the superior service means any kind of service which is not Class IV. Since the post which the petitioner hold as Overseer was not Class IV, on the admission of the 3rd respondent itself, the petitioner was appointed on the post which was superior service post. The petitioner entered the services of the 1st respondent as an Overseer which post is now known as Junior Engineer. The Municipal Commissioner, with the approval of the Standing Committee, had empowered the Overseers to exercise the powers vested in him subject to his general control and powers of revision. The Municipal Commissioner delegated his powers under section 69 of the Act vested in him under sections 263, 267 and 478 of the Act to the Overseers. Section 263 of the Act empowers issuance and completion certificate, permission to occupy and use. The Municipal Commissioner delegated his powers under section 69 of the Act vested in him under sections 263, 267 and 478 of the Act to the Overseers. Section 263 of the Act empowers issuance and completion certificate, permission to occupy and use. Section 267 empowers the Municipal Commissioner to direct removal of the persons carrying out unlawful work and section 478 empowers the Commissioner to issue written notices in respect of any work or thing done without written permission of the Municipal Commissioner under the provisions of the Act, any Rules, Regulatios or Bye-laws, to remove the same or pull down or undo, as the case may be. All this go to show that the functions and duties discharged and performed by the petitioner have been administrative. The petitioner having worked for considerably long period, in any event exceeding the period of 10 years, with the 1st respondent while discharging various duties could not be said as not possessing the requisite qualifications for being appointed as a City Engineer of the 1st respondent. In the facts of the case, the requisite experience was possessed by the petitioner and as such, the ground on which the appointment of the petitioner as the City Engineer has not been approved by the State Government is not sustainable. 6. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the Order dated 25th February, 1985 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed and the Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of the petition. Petition allowed. *****