ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This appeal arises out of oral judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the oral judgment under challenge, the appellants who were the respondents before the learned Single Judge, have been directed that in view of the fact that reinstatement is not possible as the respondent has reached the age of superannuation in the month of October 2018, the respondent – original petitioner be paid all consequential monetary benefits as the discontinuance of the respondent was absolutely invalid. 2. The facts which are not in dispute with regard to the service details of the original petitioner – respondent herein are as under : 2.1 It was the case of the original petitioner that he had initially joined the appellant-Corporation as a Planning Assistant in the Town Planning Department on 12.06.1985. After his selection, he was appointed by direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Town Planner by the State of Gujarat on 11.01.1992. He continued to work, and thereafter, after rendering 14 years in the Town Planning Department with the State of Gujarat, he applied for the post of Town Planning Officer (Planning) with the appellant – Corporation. He was selected and appointed on 03.01.2000 and after rendering one year of service, he was confirmed on 04.01.2001. The matter in dispute is the period when after rendering his services as Town Development Officer, by an order dated 18.01.2003, the respondent – original petitioner was appointed as a Town Planner. The order of appointment dated 18.01.2003 when read with a condition therein that his appointment will be on probation for a period of one year, according to the petitioner, his probation would end on 17.01.2004. 2.2 It was the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 16.04.2004, since his probation was over with effect from 17.01.2004, the Commissioner recommended that the petitioner be appointed on a long term basis in view of the petitioner’s efficiency. 2.3 The meeting of the Corporation was held on 01.11.2004 by which, the Corporation on the basis of a General Board Meeting decided to retrospectively extend the probation period of the respondent – original petitioner from 18.01.2004 to 31.12.2004. 2.3 The meeting of the Corporation was held on 01.11.2004 by which, the Corporation on the basis of a General Board Meeting decided to retrospectively extend the probation period of the respondent – original petitioner from 18.01.2004 to 31.12.2004. 2.4 At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition that he apprehended that his services will be terminated with effect from 31.12.2004 passed in the General Board Meeting and it was in this context that he made a prayer that the respondents be directed to declare that the petitioner stood automatically confirmed after three months on completion of his probation period after 18.01.2004 as per the Government Resolution dated 30.03.1989. He, further, prayed for a declaration of extending his probation period with retrospective effect as bad. 2.5 It appears that, this Court entertained the petition on the apprehension voiced by the petitioner and passed the following order: “Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner states that inspite of the fact that the Commissioner has recommended the case of the petitioner for confirmation, the General Board of the Corporation on some extraneous ground is not likely to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner and the services of the petitioner are likely to be terminated on the ground that he has not completed the probationary period satisfactorily, though according to him, the petitioner has completed the same satisfactorily as per the report of the Commissioner. However, since no decision is taken and without the decision being on record, no relief can be given to the petitioner. Mr. Patel, submitted that he will be able to produce such order latest by morning of 31st December, 2004, therefore, he requested that this matter may be adjourned to 31st December, 2004. In that view of the matter, subject to the convenience of the learned vacation judge, S.O to 31st December, 2004.” 2.6 The Court issued notice on a Civil Application filed by the Corporation. The Court made the appointment of a candidate who was appointed on the termination of the petitioner’s services, subject to the result of the petition. 2.7 In other words, the apprehension voiced by the petitioner proved right as the petitioner’s services were terminated with effect from 30.12.2004 purportedly on the ground that his probation was not extended. The Court made the appointment of a candidate who was appointed on the termination of the petitioner’s services, subject to the result of the petition. 2.7 In other words, the apprehension voiced by the petitioner proved right as the petitioner’s services were terminated with effect from 30.12.2004 purportedly on the ground that his probation was not extended. 2.8 It was the case of the petitioner that prior to such decision, the Commissioner had on second occasion on 07.12.2004 expressed satisfaction that the services rendered by the petitioner were good, and therefore, he needed to be confirmed. 2.9 The petitioner – respondent herein extensively amended the petition on his discontinuance from service. By way of an amendment, prayers 7(A) to 7(G) were added extensively alleging malafides against the appellant – Corporation. It was the case of the petitioner that the resolution dated 30.12.2004 directing the Corporation to relieve the respondent – original petitioner was on extraneous consideration. According to the petitioner – respondent herein, the resolution in meeting was passed due to political pressure of local M.L.A Shri Yogesh Patel and other corporators who were having connection with builders, in view of the fact that the work of the petitioner was not appreciated. A specific allegation was made, as is observed from the text of the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the action of the petitioner of work related to Draft Town Planning Scheme No.6 (Sayajipura) where there was a proposal for 25% and 19% deduction as per Section 40 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 had upset the MLA. Despite the MLA’s objection, the State of Gujarat had issued a notification on 29.09.2004 which infuriated the MLA and he started lobbying to remove the petitioner – respondent herein. It was in this context that the respondent-petitioner was unceremoniously removed from the post of Town Planner. 2.10 The learned Single Judge on extensive arguments made by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Clerk, held that the order of termination and the exercise prior thereto of retrospectively extending the periods, smacked up malafides. Worthwhile it will be to reproduce the observations of the learned Single Judge which are as under: “6.2 It appears that during the span of this service, even Municipal Commissioner, on 16.04.2004, has found the services of the petitioner as excellent. Worthwhile it will be to reproduce the observations of the learned Single Judge which are as under: “6.2 It appears that during the span of this service, even Municipal Commissioner, on 16.04.2004, has found the services of the petitioner as excellent. As a result of this, the Municipal Commissioner has recommended that petitioner be continued as on Karyakari appointment. This work of excellent nature has been continued by the petitioner which has also been once again appreciated by the Municipal Commissioner in the month of December, 2004 which can be seen from page : 35 of the petition compilation and Municipal Commissioner has recommended that in view of services having been rendered as quite satisfactorily, petitioner may be permanently appointed to the post of Town Planner from 01.01.2005. Even after the lapse of earlier period of one year probation i.e. 18.01.2003 to 18.01.2004, the work remained absolutely satisfactory and even upto the month of December, 2004 i.e. till 07.12.2004 for a further period of one year the services have been found to be satisfactory and that has been reflected even for a period of 18.01.2004 to 30.11.2004 as can be seen from the recommendation of Municipal Commissioner. So from the bare reading of this undisputed recommendations, it has been found that not only for a period of one year 18.01.2003 the services were found to be most satisfactory but even later on also with effect from 18.01.2004 to 30.11.2004 also the services have been found to be satisfactory and there was no complaint, no grievance with regard to petitioner’s services to the post in question. 6.3 It appears from the record of the petition that surprisingly during this passage of time, in view of un-controverted averments made on oath by the petitioner one local MLA Mr. Yogesh Patel has some grudge on account of work related to Draft Town Planning scheme No.6 (Sayajipura) in the working out of the said Draft TP scheme, there was a proposal for 25% and 19% deduction as per section 40 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 and this proposal was not liked by the sitting MLA belonging to BJP viz. Shri Yogesh Patel and the same was vehemently objected and later on State Government issued Notification on 29.09.2004 since the Draft TP No.6 with 30% deduction in respect of entire scheme and this circumstance has infuriated said Yogesh Patel who started lobbing against the petitioner for removal from the post of Town Planner by making a prestige issue. This issue surprisingly has led the corporation to take up the issue of confirmation of the petitioner as the probationer has a sudden move on 01.11.2004 arbitrary resolution in a capricious manner came to be passed whereby with retrospective effect, the probation period came to be extended from 18.01.2004 to 31.12.2004, there was a complete satisfactory performance of the petitioner as a Town Planner and there was no grievance whatsoever but this issue has been generated after September, 2004 and as a part of sudden move in November, 2004 the General Board took up the issue. So much so that a confidential report was got prepared about work and performance of the petitioner in a contradictory manner to that of two consistent Municipal Commissioners and on 19.11.2004 in a Divya Bhaskar daily newspaper it was reported that Shri Yogesh Patel had made prestige issue with regard to deduction which took place in response to Town Planning Scheme No.6 and that deduction was unfortunately falling in his own land and as a part of that issue instead of confirming the service of the petitioner has found to be absolutely upto the mark, the General Board conveyed a meeting on 30.12.2004 terminating the services of the petitioner without any just reason only by asserting that it is ‘in the interest of Corporation’. 6.4 A fact is to be taken note of that so far as the work of the petitioner as Town Planner is concerned, prior to this holding of meeting by General Board and the issue which is raised by Yogesh Patel, there was absolute no cause of complaint from any corner of the Corporation and the same is not even suggested by counsel appearing for the Corporation. Resultantly, it is quite clear that so far as work of the petitioner as Town Planner is concerned, there appears to be no issue of any nature. Resultantly, it is quite clear that so far as work of the petitioner as Town Planner is concerned, there appears to be no issue of any nature. 6.5 It is also reflecting from un-controverted averments made in affidavit-in-rejoinder that there were total 31 agenda items in the meeting of General Board which passed the Resolution and it appears that under the mandate of their respective parties, the councilors have voted against petitioner and in a fifteen minutes meeting, without deliberation or discussion of the agenda items, the meeting got over and this is the manner in which meritorious person is shunted off from the services on account of personal interest, as specifically averred, which is not in dispute, as these averments have not been controverted at all by the corporation. Since the issue is related to an arbitrary and mala fide discontinuance of the petitioners as Town Planner, the relevant un-controverted averments deserve to be quoted herein after. “6. I further say that from June,2003, Draft TP Scheme No.6 (Sayajipura) was under preparation by me and was submitted to the State Government for sanction in or around the month of July – August, 2003. In the said draft scheme, there was a proposal for 25% & 19% deduction as per Section 40 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act. This proposal was not liked by and was vehemently objected to by one sitting MLA belonging to Bharatiya Janta Party Shri Yogesh Patel before me in my official capacity. Despite that the proposal was sent to the State Government as it is. The State Government issued Notification 29.9.2004 sanctioning the draft TP Scheme No.6 (Sayajipura) with 30% deduction in respect of the entire scheme. A true copy of the said notification dated 29.9.2004 is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-II. This further infuriated Shri Yogesh Patel who made it a prestige issue. Shri Yogesh Patel therefore started a campaign against me and was lobbying for my removal from the post of Town Planner. On 1.11.2004, suddenly the General Board took up the matter of my confirmation for consideration and passed a Resolution to retrospectively extend my probation period from 18.1.2004 to 31.12.2004. The said resolution is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and illegal in as much as firstly it is retrospective and secondly it is contrary to my work and performance as recorded in the confidential reports and the proposal/recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner. The said resolution is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and illegal in as much as firstly it is retrospective and secondly it is contrary to my work and performance as recorded in the confidential reports and the proposal/recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner. On 19.11.2004, it was reported in the local daily newspaper “Divya Bhaskar” that Shri Yogesh Patel had made it a prestige issue and had objected to the deduction of 25% and 19% from his own land falling within Town Planning Scheme No.6. A true copy of the newspaper report dt.19.11.2004 is annexed herewith and marked Annexure – III. On 20.11.2004, the Municipal Commissioner passed an order of extension of probation period from 18.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 pursuant to the resolution of the General Board dtd.1.11.2004. 7. On 7.12.2004, the Municipal Commissioner made a proposal/recommendation for my confirmation which is at page 35 of the petition. In the said proposal/recommendation also the Municipal Commissioner has clearly stated that my performance during the period from 18.1.2004 to 30.11.2004 was satisfactory and therefore I should be confirmed in service. The matter of confirmation of my service was at agenda item no.22 in the meeting of the General Board of the Corporation dt.30.12.2004. 4 members of Janta Dal (U) walked out of the meeting saying that they didn’t want to be a party to the illegal action of terminating my services as recorded in the proceedings. Thereafter under a mandate issued by the Political party viz. Bhartiya Janata Party and Congress party, which are at page 38 B and 38 C of the petition, the Board passed the resolution dt.30.12.2004 terminating my services which is at page 38A of the petition. 8. It is submitted that it is evident that the said resolution was passed under a mandate and therefore none of the Councillors belong to either Bhartiya Janta Party or Congress Party had any option but to vote in favour of party proposal under the mandate as if a Councillor does not vote as per the mandate he would incur disqualification under the Defection Act, 1986. Therefore, none of the Councilors had any choice but to vote in favour of the party proposal and therefore, it is clear that there was really no discussion on the proposal/recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner as the proposed resolution had to be voted in favour of by the Councillors belonging to both the parties. Therefore, none of the Councilors had any choice but to vote in favour of the party proposal and therefore, it is clear that there was really no discussion on the proposal/recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner as the proposed resolution had to be voted in favour of by the Councillors belonging to both the parties. I further say and submit that the work or performance of an employee can be evaluated on the basis of the records, mainly confidential reports and there cannot be any evaluation of the work or performance or conduct of an employee de hors the service record consisting of confidential reports. The General Board had no other material except the files put up by the Municipal Commissioner before it and, therefore, the General Board did not and could not have considered any other material. Further, it is evident that there is no application of mind by the General Board or deliberation or consideration of my service record and confidential reports and the recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner by the General Board. The resolution dt.30.12.2004 passed by the General Board is therefore based on extraneous considerations and in disregard of relevant considerations. It is further submitted that on 30.12.2004, the General Board passed resolutions in respect of 31 agenda items within 50 minutes which further shows that in fact there was no deliberation or discussion of the agenda items. This fact is corroborated by the fact that the Councilors of both the parties were under a party mandate to vote in favour of all party proposals during the said meeting. It is therefore evident and clear that the decision to terminate my services was a political decision taken on political considerations and was not based upon relevant considerations. The resolution passed by the General Board on 30.12.004 was celebrated by the local MLA Shri Yogesh Patel and his supporters as reported by the local daily newspaper “Divya Bhaskar”, dt.31.12.2004 which is produced at page 38D to the petition. 9. It is further submitted that I incurred the wrath of the local MLAs and intermediaries with political influence due to my principles stand in the matter of my work and duties in accordance with law. 9. It is further submitted that I incurred the wrath of the local MLAs and intermediaries with political influence due to my principles stand in the matter of my work and duties in accordance with law. The MLAs and intermediaries with political connections and influence, who represent the case of different builders for favours were consistently turned down by me and therefore I became an eyesore for builders with powerful political connections with both the parties viz. Bhartiya Janta Party and Congress Party. About 25 councilors in Vadodara Municipal Corporation are themselves builders or connected with building and construction activities who do not like my work in accordance with law. During my work I had to demolish several buildings constructed in violation of General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) and / or the Town Planning Act or BPMC Act. For example, Vardhman Complex, Race Course housing the UTI Bank, Om Duplex at Manjalpur etc. In the course of my duties, I had declined to issue a Plinth Check certificate in respect of the residential building of one local BJP MLA Shri Bhupendra Lakhawala. It is evident that having regard to the nature of my work and duties, I had to take many decisions in accordance with law which would not be liked by the owners of the land or buildings who were expecting some favour from me which they did not get. In the course of my duties, I had therefore, displeased many politically influential persons who ultimately got together and in a concentrated manner, under a party mandate, passed the impugned resolution dt.30.12.2004. 10. I further say and submit that due to protests by politically influential persons, the Municipal Commissioner had formed a committee in October, 2004, consisting of 6 officers of the corporation, who would exercise the power of relaxation conferred on the corporation under the Gujarat Town Planning Act and GDCR. It is therefore evident that after October, 2004, I was not the only person exercising discretionary powers.” 6.6 It further appears from the record that petitioner’s meritorious services were appreciated by not only one Municipal Commissioner but by two consistent successive Commissioners and not only one year period is appreciated but even later period has also been appreciated. Further, the petitioner was the head of six departments of Corporation on account of his efficiency as entrusted by Corporation itself. Further, the petitioner was the head of six departments of Corporation on account of his efficiency as entrusted by Corporation itself. So far work of these departments are concerned, from page:27 to 34, the performance of those departments is projected and the petitioner was also on account of excellent performance was made representative and only delegatee from India to attend world conference at San Diego on 07.08.2004 on the issue of geogrophical information system which was approved not only by Standing Committee but even confirmed by General Board of very Corporation and as such despite the fact that one year probation period was successfully over but even subsequent one year period was also of such an excellent nature and, therefore, on the basis of these averments, it appears that petitioner’s work was never questioned at any point of time.” 3. Aggrieved by the oral judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. B. S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on various counts as under: (A) According to Mr. B.S. Patel, it was not open for the original petitioner – respondent herein to seek a writ of mandamus for a declaration that the respondent be treated as confirmed in service. He invited us to the prayers set out in the judgment under challenge. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty & Ors., reported in 1986 (4) SCC 632 . Our attention was invited to paragraph 34 of the judgment. It was vehemently contended that in absence of any judicially enforceable right, it was not open for the respondent – petitioner herein to seek a writ of mandamus asking for the reliefs as set out in the petition. He submitted that an over activist approach by the judges should be avoided to ensure that they do not trespass within the spheres earmarked for the other two branches of the State. (B) On merits Mr.Patel submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in relying on the resolution dated 30.03.1989. The resolution was not applicable to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. A specific averment which was made in the affidavit-in-reply stating that the resolution was not applicable, was not considered by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the directions issued in the oral judgment suffered from illegality. The resolution was not applicable to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. A specific averment which was made in the affidavit-in-reply stating that the resolution was not applicable, was not considered by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the directions issued in the oral judgment suffered from illegality. (C) Mr.Patel, further submitted that there was always a discretion for the employer to extend the period of probation. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Manjunath vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and other., reported in 2002 (5) SCC 250. He relied on paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment submitting that there was an implied power to extend the period of probation and till the probation is confirmed by an order of confirmation actually made, the presumption is that he continues to be a probationer. He testified in favour of the aforesaid action of the General Board of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and submitted that the terms and conditions of the appointment order contained more than one conditions in the order that was relied on in support of by the petitioner. According to Mr.Patel, it was the Corporation’s general policy that the appointment on probation was always for a period of two years. In other words, condition that the appointment was for a period of one year was not binding on the Corporation. (D) That the action was not actuated by malafides. The respondent – original petitioner had no right to continue in service. Reliance was placed on the conditions of the appointment order annexed at page 51A of the paper book where, special conditions provided that probation period was for two years. 4. Mr.A.K.Clerk, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – original petitioner, reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. In brief, he submitted as under: (A) That the order of termination/discontinuance was an example of clear arbitrariness and malafide exercise of power. (B) Despite a recommendation made twice by the Commissioner, that the petitioner – respondent here be made permanent, the General Body of the Board overrode the recommendations and with a view to oblige the MLA, first retrospectively extended the period of probation and then discontinued him from service. The entire exercise was an evil design. (B) Despite a recommendation made twice by the Commissioner, that the petitioner – respondent here be made permanent, the General Body of the Board overrode the recommendations and with a view to oblige the MLA, first retrospectively extended the period of probation and then discontinued him from service. The entire exercise was an evil design. (C) Mr.Clerk, submitted that the concept of deemed confirmation would come into play in view of the specific condition of the appointment order which provided that his probation period was for one year. He was, therefore, deemed to have been confirmed in service and it was not open for the appellant – Municipal Corporation to terminate his services. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petition, the annexures, especially the annexures containing the order of appointment, the orders recommending respondent’s confirmation in service and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation, we have no other option but to agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. 5.1 The sequence of events which we hereinafter set out exhibit a gross case of the political wing of the Corporation subverting the process of law and unceremoniously putting an end to the service of the Senior Officer of the Corporation, the Town Planning Officer, because he refused to toe the line of his political master. The evidences are as under: (A) That the respondent was an experienced hand was not in doubt. He had worked with the Corporation in the Town Planning Department in the first spell in the year 1985. After having rendered 14 years of service in the State Government, he came back to the Corporation, arose in ranks and was appointed as a Town Planning Officer on 18.01.2003. (B) Reading of the order of appointment renders no doubt that the appointment order unequivocally stated that his probation will be for a period of one year. In other words, having been so appointed for the post, he continued for a period of one year, and therefore, rightly expected that his services would be confirmed. (B) Reading of the order of appointment renders no doubt that the appointment order unequivocally stated that his probation will be for a period of one year. In other words, having been so appointed for the post, he continued for a period of one year, and therefore, rightly expected that his services would be confirmed. (C) That his expectation was not unjustified is evident from the two communications of the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation dated 16.04.2004 by which the Commissioner unequivocally certified that the services of the respondent – original petitioner were exemplary, and therefore, needed to be confirmed on a long term basis. Just two weeks prior to the impugned Resolution of the board of 07.12.2004, once again, the Commissioner reiterated this character of the petitioner’s service being above board, and therefore, once again recommended that since the petitioner’s – respondent’s tenure as probationer has come to an end on 17.01.2004, he needs to be confirmed in service even if his probation is extended up to 30.12.2004. This the Commissioner had to do in view of a communication dated 20.11.2004 by which he had to extend his period of probation. (D) The helplessness of the executive hand i.e. the Commissioner is writ large and that he had to surrender to the whims of the General Body is reflected from the communication of 07.12.2004. Reading of the communication dated 07.12.2004 suggests that the Commissioner was hapless. He was faced with the pressure of the Resolution of the General Board dated 31.12.2004. (E) Allegations have been made in the petition which have been reiterated in the rejoinder on behalf of the respondent – original petitioner that there was a divergence of decisions between the Municipal Commissioner and the General Board of the Corporation. He had specifically alleged that because of the Town Planning Scheme at Sayajipura and the fact that 25 Corporators in the General Body were builders and when his actions as Town Planner were not appreciated, his services were put to an end. The deduction recommended in the Town Planning Scheme which were approved by the State Government irked the MLA. 5.2 These contentions have not been refuted by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation in its reply nor they have been rebutted even in the appeal during the course of arguments by the counsel for the appellant – Corporation. 6. The deduction recommended in the Town Planning Scheme which were approved by the State Government irked the MLA. 5.2 These contentions have not been refuted by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation in its reply nor they have been rebutted even in the appeal during the course of arguments by the counsel for the appellant – Corporation. 6. In view of this, that the exercise is colourable, malafide and arbitrary is apparent and in Mr.Patel’s submission that this Court should not be over activist and ensure that it does not trespass within the spheres earmarked for the two branches of the State, is misconceived. The submission has to be depricated. The Court would be failing in its duty, if an officer of merit is not protected against the evil designs of his political master, when he refused to toe their line in their complicity of an illegal act. Mandamus in such a case ought to be issued. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in our opinion has rightly done so and awarded cost of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant herein. 7. Mr.Patel’s submission by taking support of the judgment in the case of S.Manjunath vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and other (supra)., is also a meritless contention. Even assuming that the Government Resolution dated 30.03.1989 is not applicable, reading of the conditions of the appointment order would evidently indicate that his appointment was on probation for a period of one year. These facts stand confirmed on reading the orders dated 16.04.2004 and 07.12.2004 by which the Commissioner recommended his confirmation. The unequivocal stand of the Corporation was that he stood confirmed with effect from 17.01.2004. There was no earthly reason, therefore, to exercise powers by the General Board to extend his period of probation retrospectively. That it did so reflects the mens rea. 8. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India reported in (1984) 2 SCC 369 and held that the action of terminating services in the manner in which it was done, cannot be justified in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge was at pains to observe that here was a case where most meritorious employee as a Town Planner is discontinued by completely altering his status and branding him differently than what was certified by the two Municipal Commissioners. The learned Single Judge was at pains to observe that here was a case where most meritorious employee as a Town Planner is discontinued by completely altering his status and branding him differently than what was certified by the two Municipal Commissioners. Even the learned Single Judge observed that “the discontinuance is a part of an evil design against the petitioner”. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, rightly so observed that there was no discretion in the General Board and the Board unanimously obliged the MLA. The Corporation completely mortgaged its morales to the wills of the MLA. We refrain from passing any comments or adverse remarks against the concerned MLA who was named in the petition particularly in view of any denial of the allegations made against him, only because he is not been made party to the proceedings. 9. Having said that, we see no reason to interfere with the oral judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, Civil Application (For Stay) does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.