Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 29.9 1 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of termination dtd. 18.91 (Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and the respondents may further be directed to pay salary to the petitioner in the regular scale of pay from the date of initial appointment or at any rate from the date it was sanctioned i.e. 10.85 and arrears may be directed to be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum etc. etc. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That the petitioner passed his Diploma in Electrical Engineering from the Government Polytechnic College, Bikaner in the year 1975. (ii) That the petitioner moved an application on 23.82 (annex. 2) to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Sadulpur for providing him employment on the post of Light-Inspector. (iii). That the petitioner moved another application on 6.82 for appointment on the post of overseer. (iv) That the petitioner was appointed vide order dtd. 2/6.82 (Annex. 3) on the post of Engineering Subordinate for a period of 30 day on daily wages basis by the Chairman, Municipal board, Rajgarh. In pursuance of order dtd. 2/6.82 (Annex. 3), the petitioner joined his duties on 6.82. (v) That the further case of the petitioner is that although he was appointed on the post of Engineering sub-ordinate, but he was made to discharge the duties of Junior engineer. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the payment for the holidays of the office used to be deducted from the payment made to him. (vi) That although no order extending the services of the petitioner was passed formally, but the petitioner was allowed to continue in the service after expiry of period of one month. (vii) That a meeting of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh was held on 211.1983 in which its members resolved that the petitioner should be allowed to continue as junior Engineer, but 11 members of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh opposed it. A copy of Resolution dtd. 211.83 is marked as Annex. 5. (viii) That a letter dtd. 27/211.83 (Annex. (vii) That a meeting of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh was held on 211.1983 in which its members resolved that the petitioner should be allowed to continue as junior Engineer, but 11 members of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh opposed it. A copy of Resolution dtd. 211.83 is marked as Annex. 5. (viii) That a letter dtd. 27/211.83 (Annex. 6) was written by the Chairman, Municipal board, Rajgarh to the Director, Local Self Department, Jaipur for staying the resolution of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh dtd. 211.83 (Annex. 5) and for employing the petitioner in regular scale of pay. (ix) That the Dy. Director, Local Self Department, Jaipur wrote a letter dtd. 11.84 (Annex. 7) to the Chairman, Municipal Board Rajgarh stating that the Municipal Board, Rajgarh was competent to appoint a person on the post of Engineering Subordinate, but so far as the post of junior Engineer is concerned, it was found that the Municipal Board, Rajgarh was not competent to make appointment on that post. (x) That thereafter the Municipal Board, Rajgarh in its meeting dtd. 22.84 resolved that the action should be taken in accordance with the latter dtd. 9.2.84 and the Government should take decision on the matter. A copy of resolution dtd. 22.84 is marked as Annex. 8. (xi) That the State Government vide its communication dtd. 26.84 (annex. 9) granted permission for continuance of the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Engineering Subordinate on daily wages basis but declined for regular appointment on the post of Engineering Subordinate. This was followed by communication dtd. 19.84. (xii) That the Chairman, Municipal Board, Rajgarh again recommended the case of the petitioner to the Dy. director, Local self Department, Jaipur for regularisation on the post of Engineering Subordinate vide letter dtd. 110.84 (Annex. 10). (xiii) That the State Government vide its communication dated 1.85 (annex. 11) granted permission for appointment of the petitioner on daily wages basis only till 3 3.85. However, the petitioner was allowed to continue beyond 3 3.85. (xiv) That the petitioner submitted an application on 11.85 (Annex. 12) for grant of regular pay scale of the post of Engineering Subordinate. (xv) That the Municipal Board in its meeting dtd. 29.85 again resolved for confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Engineering Subordinate and further resolved that the approval of the State Government be taken as was necessary under the Rules. 12) for grant of regular pay scale of the post of Engineering Subordinate. (xv) That the Municipal Board in its meeting dtd. 29.85 again resolved for confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Engineering Subordinate and further resolved that the approval of the State Government be taken as was necessary under the Rules. A copy of the resolution dtd. 29.85 is marked as Annex. 13. (xvi) That a communication dated 29.88 (Annex. 17) was issued by the office of Director, Local bodies, Jaipur that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer/Engineering Subordinate (Civil) and therefore, if he was ready to serve as Light Inspector, then his willingness might be communicated within a week. (xvii) That after a period of two years, another letter was written on 112.90 (Annex. 18) by- the Local self Department for giving consent of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Light Inspector. (xviii) That the petitioner submitted an application on 1.91 (Annex. 19) giving his consent for regular appointment on the post of Light Inspector in regular scale of pay. (xix) That on this application dtd. 1.9 1 (Annex. 19), the petitioner was appointed as Light Inspector and posted in the Municipal Council, Jaipur vide communication dtd. 10.4.9 1 (annex. 20). The petitioner submitted his joining report at the Municipal Council, Jaipur on 5.199 1. A copy ofjoining report is marked as Annex. 21. (xx) That although the petitioner’s joining report was accepted, but he was neither assigned any work nor any salary was paid to him. (xxi) That instead of providing relief to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dtd. 18.91 (annex. 26) terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Light Inspector, hence this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer. .3. In this writ petition, the order of termination dtd. 18.9 1 (Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 has been challenged on various grounds and some of them are as under:- .(i) That before passing the order dtd. 18.9 1 (annex. 26), by which services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 1, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dtd. 18.91(Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 is bad in law. 18.9 1 (annex. 26), by which services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 1, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dtd. 18.91(Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 is bad in law. .(ii) That the reasons given by the respondent No. 1 for terminating the services of the petitioner hrough impugned order dtd. 178.91 (annex. 26) are illegal and contrary to the Rajasthan unicipal Subordinate and Ministerial Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963). .(iii) That the minimum requirement for appointment to the post of Light Inspector as contained under the Rules of 1963 is that a person should be matriculate or its equivalent qualification with diploma in Electricity of I.T.I. or Polytechnic or other equivalent recognised institution and the petitioner was possessing all those qualifications as is evident form the certificate (Annex. 1) and apart from this, the petitioner was also recommended for appointment to the higher post of Engineering Subordinate, therefore, to say that he was not possessing even the qualification for appointment to the post of Light Inspector is contrary to the Rules of 1963 and hence the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside. 4. Reply tothe writ petition was filed by the Respondent No. 2 on 111.9 1 in which it has been averred by the respondent No. 2 that the letter dtd. 1.86 (Annex. 16) should not have been issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh (respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner was given regular pay scale of J.En. and it was further submitted that as soon as the office of respondent No. 2 (Executive Engineer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh) came to know that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Light Inspector in Municipal Council, Jaipur, he was immediately relieved. Hence, it was prayed by respondent No. 2 that the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 5. Reply to the writ petition was also filed by respondent No. 1. In the reply, the respondent No. 1 accepted the averments made by respondent No. 2 in para 1 to 25 of the reply. Hence, it was prayed by respondent No. 2 that the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 5. Reply to the writ petition was also filed by respondent No. 1. In the reply, the respondent No. 1 accepted the averments made by respondent No. 2 in para 1 to 25 of the reply. It was further submitted by respondent No. 1 that since initial appointment of the petitioner was on daily wages and direct recruitment could only be made as per the Rules of 1963, therefor, appointment of the petitioner, was illegal. It was further submitted by respondent No. 1 in his reply that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification even for the post of Light Inspector and hence this writ petition should be dismissed. 6. I have heard both and perused the record. 7. It may be stated here that through order dtd. 1.86 (annex. 16), the respondent No. 2 (Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh) gave regular pay scale of J.En. to the petitioner, but later on Director, Local Self Department through his letter dtd. 19.3.88 (annex. 17) asked the petitioner that he could not have been posted on the post of J.En., but he could only be posted on the post of Electrical Inspector and his choice was asked. Through letter dtd. 1.91 (Annex. 19) the petitioner replied that he was ready to work on the post of Light Inspector. The is also no dispute on the point that through letter dtd. 10.4.9 1 (Annex. 20), the petitioner was appointed as Light Inspector in the Municipal Council, Jaipur and through letter dtd. 1,5.91 (Annex. 21), the petitioner gave his joining at Municipal Council, Jaipur. 8. Theimpugned order dtd. 18.91 (annex. 26) was passed by Respondent No. I by which services of the petitioner were terminated holding that he was not having requisite qualification even for the post of Light Inspector. 9. The requisite qualification for appointment to the post of light Inspector as contained in the Schedule annexed with the Rules of 1963 reads as under:- .(G) Street Lighting .(1) Light Inspector -Magistrate or its equivalent qualification with diploma in electricity of I.I.T. or Polytechnic or other equivalent recognised institution. 10. Thus, the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Light Inspector as mentioned in the schedule annexed with the Rules of 193 have been quoted above and form perusing the certificate (Annex. 10. Thus, the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Light Inspector as mentioned in the schedule annexed with the Rules of 193 have been quoted above and form perusing the certificate (Annex. 1), it is very much clear that the petitioner was having requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Light Inspector since his initial appointment through order dtd. 2/6.1932 (Annex. 3) passed by Chairman, Municipal Board, Rajgarh on the post ot Engineering subordinate on daily wage basis when this being the position, the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained. 11. Apart from this, the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (annex. 26) passed by the respondent No. 1 is also violative of principles of natural justice as before issuing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing and no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. From this point of view also, the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. There is one more aspect in this case that has to be kept in mind that through order dtd. 1.86 (Annex. 16), the respondent No. 2 (Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh) gave regular pay scale of J.En. to the petitioner, but later on, the correspondences, which had taken place amongst the respondents, which had taken place amongst the respondents No. 1, 2 and the petitioner revealed that through letter dtd. 29.3.88 (annex. 17) issued by the Director, Local Self Department, Jaipur, the petitioner was asked that he could be appointed on the post of Light Inspector and not on the post of J.En and thereafter the petitioner gave his consent through letter dtd. 1.9 1 (Annex. 19) for appointment on the post of Light Inspector and thereafter order dtd. 10.4.9 1 (Annex. 20) was passed by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 is very responsible authority. On the one hand, it recommended that in case the petitioner wanted to get appointment on the post of Light Inspector, he could be appointed and thereafter he was appointed on the post of Light Inspector at Municipal Council, Jaipur through order dtd. 10.4.9 1 (Annex. 20), but subsequently, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (Annex. On the one hand, it recommended that in case the petitioner wanted to get appointment on the post of Light Inspector, he could be appointed and thereafter he was appointed on the post of Light Inspector at Municipal Council, Jaipur through order dtd. 10.4.9 1 (Annex. 20), but subsequently, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (Annex. 26) on the pretest that he was not having requisite qualification. This action on the of respondent No. 1 is not appreciable and is condemned as the petitioner was having requisite qualification for the post of Light Inspector. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the order dtd. 18.91 (Annex. 26) is liable to be set aside and this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 14. It may be stated here that in this case, on stay application, operation of the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (annex. 26) was stayed on 29.91 and that order was confirmed on 28.93 till the decision of writ petition. it has been submitted at Bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inspite of stay order, the petitioner was not taken in service by respondent No. 1. If it is so, the petitioner, if desires, may take appropriate steps for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondent. Nothing can be said in this respect in this writ petition. 15. Thusby impugned order dtd. 18.9 1 (Annex. 26) by which services of the petitioner was terminated, legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed and hence, he is entitled to the relief sought for as indicated above under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition petition is allowed and the impugned order dtd. 18.91 (Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 by which servicesof the petitioner were termninated is set aside. Further it is made clear that in this case, there was stay order dtd. 29.91 in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, since 5.9 1 (the date on which the petitioner joined his services as Light Inspector at Municipal Board, Jaipur) the petitioner would be treated in service at the Municipal Council, Jaipur on the post of Light Inspector. The petitioner would also get all the consequential benefits from 5.91, the date on which the petitioner joined his services as Light Inspector at Municipal Board, Jaipur. Cost made easy.