JUDGMENT - PANDYA N.J., J.:---A peculiar situation has arisen with reference to service condition of the petitioner with the respondent-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation). 2. The petitioner was employed as Bus Conductor of the said Corporation who came to be terminated from the service in departmental proceedings. He challenged that order and by a compromise between the petitioner and Corporation entered into before the Labour Court at Nagpur, recorded on 13-10-1985, he was taken back on duty with effect from 25-10-1985. 3. While he was terminated and no doubt the dispute as to that termination was pending, the petitioner contested the Municipal election from Ward No. 16 of Hinganghat. As per Govt. Gazette, Part I-A, he was declared to be elected to that Municipal Council. 4. Admittedly, therefore, as on the date of election, the petitioner was definitely not in the service of respondent-Corporation. He came to be taken back in service on 25-10-1985. It is said that he would be governed by the Service Rules. The relevant Rule would be Rule 48-B which is quoted at page 12 of petition, which reads as under: 48-B. No employee shall take active part in any politics or demonstration, or contest the election to any Cantonment Board, or Gram Panchayat, or Municipal Corporation, or Zilla Parishad, or Parliament or to an Legislature, except with the permission of the Vice-President and the General Manager of the Corporation. 5. Because of that Rule, the petitioner sought permission as per Annexure-A (page 21) which came to be rejected on 3-3-1986 as per Annexure-D. A curious stand is taken by the said Corporation by insisting that as per the Service Rules, the petitioner can remain either in the post of a bus conductor or can remain a Councillor. Even by the communication dated 29-2-1986, Annexure-B, the said Corporation informed the petitioner that even after his reappointment he continued to be a Councillor and therefore he has to elect one of them. He was threatened with departmental action also. In the said Communication Annexure-D the petitioner was called upon to resign within three days failing which action was proposed. 6. It is not in dispute that Rule 48-B was in existence at the relevant time and would apply to the petitioner. What was expected of the respondent-Corporation was that it should exercise its power and grant permission under the said Rule. 6. It is not in dispute that Rule 48-B was in existence at the relevant time and would apply to the petitioner. What was expected of the respondent-Corporation was that it should exercise its power and grant permission under the said Rule. The stand taken by it that the petitioner can remain either as a Councillor or in the service of the Corporation is, therefore, not correct. The said Rule admits of a possibility of petitioner being an employee of the Corporation and at the same time member of the Municipal Council. 7. The impugned action of the Corporation cannot, therefore, be sustained. The same is quashed and set aside. In the result, petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms. Petition allowed. -----