R. H. ZAIDI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner challenges the order, dated 13. 7. 1972, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Qaimganj, dis trict Farrukhabad. 3. It appears that the petitioner was an employee of the Municipal Board and was working on the post of Accountant in the Municipal Board, Qaimganj, district Far rukhabad. According to the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition, he was promoted to the post of Executive Officer vide order dated 27th August, 1971, passed by the President of the Municipal Board. A resolution is also alleged to have been passed by the Municipal Board for his ap pointment on the said post, later on the papers are alleged to have been submitted to the State Government for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Officer of the said Board. Admittedly, in-spite of letters and reminders no approval was accorded by the State Government to the appointment of the petitioner as Execu tive Officer. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the President vide order dated 13. 7. 1972 as stated above which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed and the facts stated in the writ petition have been con troverted. It has been stated that the post of Executive Officer is a centralised post and the appointments on the same and the other matters relating thereto are governed by the U. P. Nagar Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966 ( here in after referred to as the Service Rules ). It has also been stated that the appointment of the petitioner, if any, was not made in accordance with the said rules, the petitioner has got no right to con tinue on the said post. His services were rightly terminated by the President of the Municipal Board and he was rightly asked to hold the post on which he had his lien. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was rightly appointed as the Executive Officer by the President and, thereafter, his appointment was confirmed by the Municipal Board in exercise of the power under Section 57 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was rightly appointed as the Executive Officer by the President and, thereafter, his appointment was confirmed by the Municipal Board in exercise of the power under Section 57 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had the right to hold the said post and the President has no right to terminate his service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned in the present petition is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand learned standing counsel submits that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer was contrary to the provisions of the rules. Appointment was never made by the State Government which is the appointing authority of the Executive Officers and was never approved by the appointing authority. 7. I have perused the record and con sidered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Challenging the validity of the order of termination dated 13. 7. 1972, the petitioner firstly filed civil suit in the Civil Court and succeeded in obtaining ex pane interim order from the said Court which was ultimately vacated. In the meanwhile, U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1978, came into force and the suit which was pending in the Civil Court stood transferred to the Tribunal and vide its judgment and order, dated 27. 1. 1982 the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner, thereafter, tiled a review petition which was also rejected vide order dated 29. 3. 1982. After rejection of the review application the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the order of ter mination, dated 27. 1. 1982 and order dated 29. 3. 82 whereby the claim petition and review application filed by the petitioner were rejected by Tribunal. 9. After enforcement of the rules the appointments and service condition of the employees of the Municipal Boards, whose services were centralised, are governed by the provisions of the rules. 10. Rule 21 of the aforesaid rules provides as under: "21. 3. 82 whereby the claim petition and review application filed by the petitioner were rejected by Tribunal. 9. After enforcement of the rules the appointments and service condition of the employees of the Municipal Boards, whose services were centralised, are governed by the provisions of the rules. 10. Rule 21 of the aforesaid rules provides as under: "21. Appointment - (1) On the occurrence of substantive vacancies, the Government shall make appointments to the Centralised Services from the list prepared under Rule 19 and by promotion in accordance with the provisions of Rule 20: Provided that in case where appointment made both by promotion and direct recruitment, the Government shall make appointment in such vacancies by taking candidates alternately so far as this may be possible from the two lists of promoted and directly recruited candidates. Can didates shall be taken in the order in which they stand in the list and the first candidate taken shall be from the list of promoted candidates. (2) The Government may also make ap pointment in temporary vacancies for a period exceeding six weeks from the persons selected for promotion under Rule 20: Provided that if no approved candidate is available for such appointment, the Government may appoint a candidate who is eligible under the rules for permanent recruitment to the Centralised Services. The appointments under this proviso shall be subject to the provisions contained in the U. P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1954. " 11. Aforesaid rule provides that on oc currence of substantive vacancies, the State Government shall make appointments to the centralised services from the list prepared under Rule 19 and by promotion in accordance with the provisions of Rule 20 and not the President or the Municipal Board. A reference in this regard may also be made to the decision in Hameed Ullah v. State of U. P. , [1982 UPLBEC 215 (DB)]. 12. Under Rule 31 of the Rules power to the President has been given to make appointments on the said posts, as a mea sure of stop-gap arrangement, for a period of six weeks beyond which only the State Government can make appointments. 13. In the present case admittedly, no appointment was made by the State Government nor any approval was ever granted to the appointment alleged to have been made by the President of the Municipal Board. 13. In the present case admittedly, no appointment was made by the State Government nor any approval was ever granted to the appointment alleged to have been made by the President of the Municipal Board. Therefore, the petitioners claim to hold the post in ques tion cannot be accepted. 14. Before the Tribunal the question arose whether the petitioner was legally ap pointed as the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Qaimganj, Farrukhabad or not 15. The Tribunal after perusing evidence on the record returned the follow ing findings: "in view of the facts discussed above the temporary appointment of the petitioner on the Executive Officer made on 27. 7. 1971 by the Presi dent of the Board on ad hoc basis would automat ically come to an end after the expiry of six weeks from the said date the petitioner would not get any right to continue on the said post thereafter when his appointment as officiating Executing Officer was neither approved nor made by the State Government for any subsequent period under Rule 31 of the Centralised Service Rules. This legal position continued to exist when the petitioners served with an order of the President dated 13. 7. 1982 which is Annexure A-2 that has been filed with the counter affidavit. The said order only states that the petitioner was relieved from the post of acting Executing Officer and would instead work on his old post from then onwards. This order thus regularises the above legal position since the continuance of the petitioner on the post of acting Executing Officer was itself illegal and so he was directed to work on his substantive post from then onwards. In the circumstances the said order neither amounts to his termination nor reversion to his substantive post entitling the petitioner to any opportunity of defence or of showing cause. Admittedly another person has been appointed by the State Govern ment on the post of Executive Officer. As such the petitioner cannot challenge the above order of the President dated 13. 7. 1972 as he has no legal right to hold the post of Executive Officer after expiry of six weeks from 27. 7. 1971. Hence, the petitioner is held not entitled to the reliefs claimed. " 16. The Tribunal has recorded clear and categorical findings that the petitioner was never appointed by the State Govern ment. 7. 1972 as he has no legal right to hold the post of Executive Officer after expiry of six weeks from 27. 7. 1971. Hence, the petitioner is held not entitled to the reliefs claimed. " 16. The Tribunal has recorded clear and categorical findings that the petitioner was never appointed by the State Govern ment. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are finding of fact which are based on relevant materials on the record. It may also be noted that after termination of the ser vices of the petitioner Sri R. C. Misra, was appointed by the Government as the Execu tive Officer of Municipal Board, Qaimganj, the petitioner has neither challenged his appointment of Sri D. C. Misra nor impleaded him as one of the respondents in the present petition. 17. In my opinion, Sri D. C. Misra was a necessary party for the purposes of the present case. The writ petition filed by the petitioner without impleading him is also incompetent. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. .