ORDER Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The challenge is to the impugned order dated 21.1.2010, passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Meerapur, district Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the dispensation of the service of the petitioner is illegal and unjust. 3. The contention raised is that the petitioner has worked for more than 10 years, therefore, his services could not have been dispensed with. It is further submitted that his services were confirmed. 4. The charge against the petitioner is that he was appointed directly on the post of Safai Nayak which post is a promotional post and no direct recruitment can be made on the said post. The complaint was made earlier and learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his services were confirmed by the order dated 11.1.2003. 5. It is further submitted that not only this the second complaint has been made on the same grounds and as such the same could not have been entertained. 6. A perusal of the second complaint demonstrates that the same has emanated on the strength of a letter issued by the National Commission for safai karmcharis, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, wherein, it has been indicated that the claim of the petitioner does not come within the four corners of the Rules and he has obtained employment against a post which could not have been filled by direct recruitment. Thereafter, the matter was inquired into and the impugned order has been passed. 7. Learned counsel contends that after having continued and having been confirmed in service, the petitioner could not have been removed from the post. 8. It is true that the Apex Court in case of Dr. M. S. Mudhol and another v. Halegkar and others, 1993 (3) SCC 591 , has indicated that even if a person has continued in service for long on the basis of some deficiency in initial appointment then such appointment should not be dispensed with. However, the case at hand is distinguishable on facts. 9. The Apex Court subsequently in the case of State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, 2006 (1) AWC 175, has clarified the aforesaid position and held that an irregularity can be cured but an illegality cannot be cured through judicial intervention. However, the case at hand is distinguishable on facts. 9. The Apex Court subsequently in the case of State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, 2006 (1) AWC 175, has clarified the aforesaid position and held that an irregularity can be cured but an illegality cannot be cured through judicial intervention. The Apex Court has held that a person who has been appointed completely de hors the rules, such appointment on equities cannot be sustained. Reference be had to paras 52 and 57. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner has been admittedly appointed against a promotional post on which no direct recruitment could have taken place. The Court is supported in its view by the decision in the case of Hiraman v. State of U. P., 1997 (11) SCC 630 . In this view of the matter the impugned order cannot be interfered in view of the findings recorded therein. 11. On equities petitioner has worked for almost 18 years. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat may sympathetically consider the petitioners engagement as a safai karmchari. Keeping in view the aforesaid position explained hereinabove the petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.