R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) IN all the above noted petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 36179 of 1991, shall be the leading case. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28. 11. 1991, whereby the Administrator of Nagar Palika, Mirzapur, has terminated the services of the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the Rules, known as the U. P. Municipal board Services [inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Services) Rules, for short "the Rules. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition. In brief, are that, according to the petitioner, he was appointed as clerk grade II on daily wage basis for a period of three months only by the then President of the Municipal Board, Mirzapur, by order dated 1. 6. 1990. The term of the petitioner is alleged to have been extended by the President by order dated 20. 9. 1990. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as clerk on 1. 6. 1990 and on 30. 1. 1991 he was attached to the Health Department of the Board. Subsequently, the Board was superseded and the Administrator was appointed to look after the affairs of the Municipal Board, who, according to the petitioner, acting illegally and in violation of the provision of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules, terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 28. 11. 1991, hence the present petition. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed claiming that the President of the Board had no authority to appoint the petitioner on daily wage basis or Otherwise as there existed no sanctioned post nor there existed any vacancy in the said post. It has been stated that vide Government Orders dated 12. 7. 1975 and 19. 12. 1977, the Government issued orders prohibiting the Presidents and the Boards to make appointments contrary to the provisions of the act. It has been stated that vide Government Orders dated 12. 7. 1975 and 19. 12. 1977, the Government issued orders prohibiting the Presidents and the Boards to make appointments contrary to the provisions of the act. It has also been stated that appointment of the petitioner was never ratified by the Board inasmuch as the matter of appointment of the petitioner was never placed before the Board for its consideration and ratification. It has also been stated that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularized even if he has worked on the basis of the order passed by the President as there existed no sanctioned post of the clerk and vacancy therein and the financial condition of the board was precarious. The Administrator in exercise of his power under Rule 11 rightly terminated the services of the petitioner. The order of termination was quite legal. In the counter-affidavit, it has not been specifically or otherwise stated, that there existed any sanctioned post or vacancy therein at the time the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk in the Municipal Board. Mirzapur. In reply to the allegations made in the counter-affidavit, a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed in which the facts stated in the counter-affidavit have been denied and controverted and the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed. ( 5 ) IN Writ Petition Nos. 36224 of 1991, 36225 of 1991 and 36226 of 1991 the only difference is that the initial appointment was made in the Municipal Board not by the President of the Board but by the Water Works Engineer. In other respects, the facts are similar to other petitions. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was legally appointed by the President of the Municipal Board in the year 1990. His services have illegally been terminated by the Administrator in contravention and violation of provisions of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules, referred to above. The impugned order of termination was, therefore, liable to be quashed and the respondents were liable to be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the impugned order. The impugned order of termination was, therefore, liable to be quashed and the respondents were liable to be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged by him that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, there existed no sanctioned post of clerk or vacancy therein. The appointment made by the President of the Municipal Board was wholly illegal, in excess of his jurisdiction and in violation of the Government Orders dated 12. 7. 1975 and 19. 12. 1977. It was also urged that the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules had no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the service rules, referred to above. The writ petition, therefore, has got no merit and was liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record of the abovementioned cases. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was appointed by the President of the Municipal Board on the post of clerk initially on daily wage basis. Subsequently, his term was extended and he was ultimately appointed on temporary basis as a clerk by the President. Under the provisions of the Act and the rules, the President had no jurisdiction to make appointment on the post of clerk. The appointment could be made by the Board or atleast should have been ratified by the Board in its meeting held immediately after the appointment was made. Neither the Board appointed the petitioner nor ever ratified his appointment. A reference in this regard may be made to the provisions of Sections 70 and 71 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Section 70 of the Act provides that the President of the Board may appoint a temporary servant but the appointment made by him is to be ratified by the Board in the meeting held immediately after the appointment was made. Clause (b) of Section 70 of the Act reads as under : "each appointment under this Section by the President shall be reported at the nest meeting of the board following the appointment. Clause (b) of Section 70 of the Act reads as under : "each appointment under this Section by the President shall be reported at the nest meeting of the board following the appointment. " ( 10 ) IN the present case, admittedly the question of appointment of the petitioner was never placed before the Board in the next meeting held immediately after the petitioner was appointed. The appointment of the petitioner was thus, illegal. Section 71 of the Act. on the other hand, provides that the Board may, by special resolution, determine that servant was required for duties of the Board and their qualifications and conditions of service. Thus, the power of appointment of a clerk vests in the Board and not in the President of the Board. The petitioner, thus, was illegally appointed on the aforesaid post by the President. He, therefore, has got no right to hold the post in question particularly when there existed no sanctioned post. Rules 9 and 11 of the rules, referred to above, read as under : "9. Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation, or of a temporary servant for any specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service, it shall not be necessary to observe the detailed procedure laid down in Rule 5. In such cases, the probationer or temporary servant concerned shall be apprised of the grounds of such proposal, given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, and his explanation in this behalf, if any. shall be duly considered before orders are passed by the competent authority. ( 11 ) (1) Subject to the provisions of the Rule 9, the services of a temporary servant shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the servant to the competent authority, or by the competent authority to the servant. shall be duly considered before orders are passed by the competent authority. ( 11 ) (1) Subject to the provisions of the Rule 9, the services of a temporary servant shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the servant to the competent authority, or by the competent authority to the servant. (2) The period of such notice given either by the competent authority to the servant or by the servant to the competent authority shall be one month: provided that in the case of notice by the competent authority the latter may substitute for the whole or part of this period of notice, pay in lieu thereof, and provided further that it shall be open to the competent authority to relieve a servant without any notice or accept notice for a shorter period. without requiring the servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice. (3) In this rule "temporary service" rneans officiating and substantive service in a temporary post, and officiating service in a permanent post under a Municipal Board. (4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to : (a) servants engaged on contract : (b) servants not in whole-time employment of a Municipal Board. (c) servants paid out of contingencies : and (d) persons employed in work-charged establishments. " 11. Rule 9 apparently has got no application in the present case as the petitioner was not appointed as a probationer nor his services were terminated for any specific fault nor on account of his unsuitability for the service, therefore, there was no occasion to provide him an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him nor his explanation was required to be considered by the competent authority. The services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated in exercise of power under Rule 11, and were rightly terminated, at any time by notice in writing given either by the servant to the competent authority or by the competent authority to the servant. In the present case, the notice was given by the competent authority to the petitioner while terminating his services. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted. In the present case, the notice was given by the competent authority to the petitioner while terminating his services. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents was right in his submission that there existed no sanctioned post, therefore, there was no justification for the President to appoint the petitioner on daily wage basis or otherwise particularly in view of the Government Orders dated 12. 7. 1975 and 19. 12. 1977, the copies of which have been filed as Annexures-l and 1a to the counter-affidavit which totally prohibits the appointments of the members of the staff of local bodies without prior sanction of the State Government. The petitioner also cannot take advantage of Government Order dated 25. 10. 1989, inasmuch as admittedly he did not put in three years continuous service and 240 days in each year. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. This order shall govern all above noted petitions. Copies of this order may be placed on the records of the aforesaid petitions. .