JUDGMENT : 1. In present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of termination passed by the respondent-Municipality on 17.05.2001 and the order dated 19.03.2005, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. 2. The petitioner was working with Savarkundla Municipality as Ward Peon. It is the case of the petitioner that by the order dated 28.06.2001, the respondent Municipality regularized his services and placed him in the pay-scale of Rs.775-1025. The petitioner thereafter, was terminated vide order dated 17.05.2002 on the ground that his initial appointment was dehors the rules and regulations of the respondent Municipality. It is stated in the order dated 17.05.2002 that the Chief Officer vide letter dated 19.01.2002 had already relieved him from the services. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application No.1192 of 2001 before this Court. Vide order dated 15.07.2003, this Court disposed of the writ petition on the statement made by the petitioner that he would prefer an appeal before the Director of Municipality or pursue the appropriate remedy available to him as per law. In view of that, the petition was withdrawn and this Court continued the interim relief granted till 15.08.2003. The petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision application which was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2003 by stating that an appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the Director of Municipality, Gujarat State. The petitioner once again approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.5307 of 2004. By the order dated 12.07.2004, aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by directing the State Government to examine the question raised by the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 264 of the Act. By the order dated 19.03.2005, the State Government rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the respondent – Nagarpalika. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Mr.Nisarg Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent Municipality never supplied the letter dated 19.01.2002 written by the Chief Officer. He has stated that the termination being in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be quashed and set aside. He raised further contention that juniors to the petitioners are retained, whereas the services of the petitioner is terminated. He has stated that the termination being in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be quashed and set aside. He raised further contention that juniors to the petitioners are retained, whereas the services of the petitioner is terminated. He has requested that in view of the fact of present case, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the service also. 6. Per contra, Mr.Pratik Khubchandani, learned advocate for the respondent Municipality submitted that the petitioner was appointed dehors the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Nagarpalika and hence, his service was terminated. He has submitted that by the Government guidelines issued vide Government Resolution dated 20.10.1999, the State Government had prohibited the employment of the daily wagers beyound the prescribed limits. Placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent – Nagarpalika, he has submitted that after that the Nagarpalika had followed the procedure of recruitment maximum to 10% of the approved set up. He has also submitted that as on date of appointment of the petitioner, there was a sanctioned set up of 243 workers approximately in all including the Class-III and IV employees. As per the aforesaid guidelines dated 20.10.1999, the Nagarpalika was entitled to employee in all 25 persons approximately as daily wagers. He has stated that Daily wagers could not have been appointed since 25 of them were beyond permitted limit including present petitioner. Hence, appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the government guidelines and as he was back door entry, his services were terminated. He has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager by order dated 19.10.2000 by resolution passed by the President which is contrary to law, as no approval was taken from the State Government. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent Municipality has also further submitted that by Resolution dated 07.12.2011, the services of the petitioner were discontinued and an application was filed to the Director of Municipality by the Collector drawing attention to the illegal appointment in the respondent Nagarpalika and hence, by order dated 29.04.2002, Director of Municipality was pleased to discontinue the services of the illegally appointed persons including the petitioner. He has stated that the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No.9 of the said order. 8. He has stated that the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No.9 of the said order. 8. Learned advocate for the respondent Municipality has vehemently submitted that though the petitioner was discontinued from 2001, he has chosen not to put aforesaid fact in the present petition. The reference was also made by him to the order dated 07.12.2001 annexed with the affidavit in reply, wherein the office order was passed by the respondent Nagarpalika informing the daily rated employees including the petitioner whose name figures at Sr.No.9, that their services were terminated. He has submitted that the aforesaid document would go to show that the aforesaid order was received by the incumbent mentioned therein and someone had accepted the order on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact, he has urged that present petition requires to be dismissed in view of the suppression of facts and in wake of the fact that the petitioner was appointed dehors the recruitment process, as envisaged in the regulations of the Nagarpalika. 10. The fact established from the record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager. By the order dated 28.06.2001, he was placed in a regular pay-scale by the respondent Nagarpalika. However, bare perusal of the aforesaid order would reveal that the same is not approved by the Director of Municipalities or by the State Government. The case of the petitioner right from the beginning is that the petitioner was terminated in violation of provisions of the Municipalities Act, as the said contention can be noted from the order dated 12.07.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No.5370 of 2004. Though it is contended that the persons juniors to the petitioner are retained in service while he has been terminated, no material suggesting the same is produced on record. The petitioner has also not disputed that his appointment was made against the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Municipalities Act. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that by the order dated 29.04.2002, the Director of Municipalities, after due consideration of all the relevant facts has held that the appointment of the petitioner was back door in nature and his services were required to be terminated. The aforesaid order dated 29.04.2002 is not challenged in the present petition. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that by the order dated 29.04.2002, the Director of Municipalities, after due consideration of all the relevant facts has held that the appointment of the petitioner was back door in nature and his services were required to be terminated. The aforesaid order dated 29.04.2002 is not challenged in the present petition. The contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the termination of the petitioner being in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be entertained at this stage since in the earlier round of litigation, he had never contended that his termination was against the aforesaid provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that case, he could have availed the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, no material is produced on record suggesting that the termination of the petitioner was in fact in violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact remains that the petitioner was appointed dehors the provisions of law and the guidelines issued by the State Government vide Resolution dated 20.10.1999, his appointment being illegal and void ab-initio, the petitioner had no right on the post. It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed by the Municipality without following any procedure of law at the relevant time and hence, the Director of Municipality was justified in declaring those appointments as illegal since they were in excess of the percentage fixed by the State Government. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner being back door entry, his services were rightly terminated by the respondent authorities. 11. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the judgment dated 27.01.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.5228 of 2002 cannot be come to his rescue as the full bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality Versus Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, reported in 2004 (2) GLH 692 while dealing with the similar issue has held that the persons, who are appointed through back door have no right to their post. Reference is also necessitated to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Versus Upendra Narayan Singh reported in 2009 (5) SCC 65 . In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:- "47. Reference is also necessitated to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Versus Upendra Narayan Singh reported in 2009 (5) SCC 65 . In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:- "47. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [ (1992) 4 SCC 118 ], this Court reiterated that appointment to the public posts should ordinarily be made by regular recruitment through the prescribed agency and that even where ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, the candidate should be drawn from the employment exchange and that if no candidate is available or sponsored by the employment exchange, some method consistent with the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution should be followed by publishing notice in appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly, but proceeded to observe that if an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities are duty bound to consider his case for regularization subject to his fulfilling the conditions of eligibility and the requirement of satisfactory service. 48. The propositions laid down in Piara Singh's case (supra) were followed by almost all High Courts for directing the concerned State Governments and public authorities to regularize the services of ad hoc/temporary/daily wage employees only on the ground that they have continued for a particular length of time. In some cases, the schemes framed for regularization of the services of the backdoor entrants were also approved. As a result of this, beneficiaries of spoil system and corruption garnered substantial share of Class III and Class IV posts and thereby caused irreparable damage to the service structure at the lower levels. Those appointed by backdoor methods or as a result of favoritism, nepotism or corruption do not show any commitment to their duty as public servant. Not only this, majority of them are found to be totally incompetent or inefficient. 12. In view of the aforesaid law enunciated by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.