Judgment: 1. Heard, counsel for the parties. As this petition raises short question, we deem it appropriate to take up the petition for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. Counsel for the respondents have waived notice for final disposal. 3. The principal challenge in this petition is to the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as Aldermen by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, in exercise of powers under section 9(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). 4. The petitioner has asserted that none of these respondents possess special knowledge or experience in the Municipal administration and yet have been nominated by the State Government, which is against the spirit of section 9 of the Act of 1956. 5. The fact that the State Government did not ascertain, the factum of special knowledge or experience possessed by respondent Nos. 3 to 8 has been expressly admitted in para 5 of the reply affidavit dated 6-1-2014, filed on behalf of the State Government. 6. In other words, the decision of the State Government is without application of mind and de hors the mandate of section 9(1)(c) of the Act of 1956, which postulates that six persons having special knowledge or experience in the Municipal administration alone should be nominated as Aldermen. 7. In that case, it is unnecessary to examine the other challenge of the petitioner that none of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 possess the requisite special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration. Instead, after setting aside the appointments already made, the State Government can be permitted to nominate six persons who possess special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration for the remainder term. 8. The question whether respondent Nos. 3 to 8 possess the requisite qualification can be considered by the appropriate Authority, but while doing so, the Authority shall not take the experience gained by the said respondents after their appointment as Aldermen on 3-5-2011 and onwards till this order is passed setting aside their appointment, in the light of exposition of Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 48 in the case of Brijbhal Singh Gautam v. Union of India, 2002 (5) MPLJ 204. In other words, the State Government is free to appoint any six persons as Aldermen for the remainder term of the Corporation either from amongst respondent Nos. In other words, the State Government is free to appoint any six persons as Aldermen for the remainder term of the Corporation either from amongst respondent Nos. 3 to 8, or any other persons, but while ensuring that experience gained by respondent Nos. 3 to 8 after 3-5-2011 shall not be reckoned for such appointment. 9. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 by the State Government as Aldermen of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, in terms of Notification dated 3-5-2011, is set aside and, instead, the State Government is permitted to re-examine the proposal for appointment of Aldermen of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur for the remainder term, keeping in mind the observations made in this order. Petition disposed of, accordingly.