Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned part of order regularising the petitioner on the post of Fitter with effect from 6.12.1988 instead of the date of initial appointment. 2. The petitioner qualified the Fitter Course from the Government Industrial Training Institute at Chengalput in July 1973 and got his name registered with the Employment Exchange. On requisition from the Commissioner of Municipality, the name of the petitioner was sponsored for appointment, to the post of Fitter, along with other eligible persons. After following due process of selection, the petitioner was appointed as Fitter, on daily wages basis and posted at Alandur Municipality. 3. Keeping in view of the requirement, the Government vide order dated 25.06.1982, sanctioned four posts of Fitter at Alandur Municipality. Inspite of sanction of these posts, the petitioner was forced to work as Fitter, on daily wages instead in time scale of pay, whereas the remaining three posts were not filled up. 4. The service conditions of the employees working in the Municipality, in the State of Tamil Nadu are governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Last Grade Service Rules, 1975. 5. Rule 4 of these rules stipulates exclusion of the general service rules. According to the statutory rules, the appointing authority is the Commissioner of Municipality. 6. The rule further provides that temporary appointment can only be made for a period of three months, and within this stipulated period, it is statutory duty to replace temporary appointment, by regular appointment, in accordance with the rules. 7. Though under the statutory rules, the competent authority was the Commissioner of Municipality. For the reason best known to him, instead of ordering regularisation of the petitioner from the date of sanction of post i.e. 25.6.1982, he forwarded the recommendation to the State Government to regularise the service of the petitioner against the sanctioned post of Fitter, from the date of his initial appointment. 8. The recommendation was accepted, but without assigning any reason, it was ordered that the service of the petitioner be regularised with effect from 7.12.1988 only i.e. on completion of ten years of service. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of State Government, in ordering regularisation of the service of the petitioner with effect from 07.12.1988, on the ground of jurisdiction. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of State Government, in ordering regularisation of the service of the petitioner with effect from 07.12.1988, on the ground of jurisdiction. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the statutory rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner, it is the Commissioner of Municipality who is the competent authority to appoint a person, it was therefore, not open to the State Government to issue directions contrary to the recommendation of the Commissioner, i.e. the competent authority. 11. On consideration, I find force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the service rules, the Commissioner was to take independent decision regarding reguarisation of service of employee who was appointed by regular method and was not a back door entry, the State Government has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner of Municipality under the statutory rules. 12. The Government under the statutory rules can only issue clarifications, under Rule 26 in case of doubt regarding interpretation of the rule. The State Government is not vested with any power to regulate the service conditions of the employees working in municipality. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside, and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner, Alandur Municipality, Chennai, to take a decision regarding regularisation of service of the petitioner from the due date i.e. date of sanction of the post by the State Government, in view of the fact, that the petitioner was appointed by following due process of law in accordance with rules, and taking into account the fact that it was not open to the Municipal authority, to continue temporary appointments beyond three months. 14. The needful be done within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost.