Judgment :- 1. This Original Petition is directed against the order of the Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination of her service as a Lecturer in the 3rd Respondent's college. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Zoology on 2-6-1970. The copy of the appointment order is filed as Ext. P1. The appointment was for a specified period from 2-6-1970 to 31-3-1971. On the expiry of this period she was discharged. She filed an appeal complaining about this discharge. According to her, she was appointed against a substantive vacancy and the provisions of S.55 of the Kerala University Act, 1969, as amended by Act 13 of 1971, enable her to continue in service and her services can be terminated only as provided for in that section. The Vice Chancellor took the view that as her service in the College was for less than an year there is no scope for the application of the provisions of S.55 and so he dismissed the appeal. Correctness of this decision is challenged here. 2. According to the petitioner, every teacher appointed in a private college shall be on probation for the period of one year within a period of two years. There is no case for the management that her services were terminated on finding that she is unsuitable to hold the post. Her services have been terminated not on the basis of a disciplinary action also. So, according to her, on satisfactory completion of probation she should be confirmed in the post as she was appointed in a substantive vacancy. The management has taken up the stand that as she was appointed for a term of less than one year, which they are entitled to, her services are terminated only on the expiry of the period and nothing in S.55 prohibits such a step. The relevant clauses of S.55 referred to in the course of the argument are sub-sections (1) and (4) which are in the following terms: "55. Probation (1) Teachers of private colleges shall be on probation for a period of one year within a period of two years; Provided that in exceptional cases the period of probation maybe extended by a period not exceeding one year, subject to the prior approval of the Syndicate. Probation (1) Teachers of private colleges shall be on probation for a period of one year within a period of two years; Provided that in exceptional cases the period of probation maybe extended by a period not exceeding one year, subject to the prior approval of the Syndicate. Explanation: Probation undergone by a teacher before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be probation for the purposes of this sub-section, provided such probation is within a period of two years immediately before such commencement. ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ (4) On satisfactory completion of probation, the governing body, or managing council, as the case may be, shall confirm the teacher in the post if the pos4 is substantively vacant, and if the post is not substantively vacant or if the appointment is for a specific period, the teacher shall be allowed to continue for the remaining period of bis appointment-" Sub-s- (4), as above, was substituted by a new sub-section by the Kerala University Amendment Act (Act 13 of 1971) which is in the following terms: "(4) on satisfactory completion of probation, the educational agency or the corporate management, as the case may be, shall confirm the teacher in the post and if the vacancy is not a substantive vacancy, the teacher shall be allowed to continue in the post for the duration of the vacancy. Explanation All teachers who have been working in a substantive vacancy at or after the commencement of the principal Act shall be deemed to have been on probation for the purpose of this sub-section." This Amending Act has been given retrospective effect from 10-12-1970. The petitioner's contention is that before the expiry of the period of appointment mentioned in Ext P1, namely 31-3-1971, the amended sub-section (4) of S.55 came into force on 10-12-1970 and therefore the management cannot dispense with her services after the expiry of the period. In other words, as the provision for discharge after the expiry of the period provided for in the unamended sub-section (4) has been taken away in the new sub-section and though a period is mentioned in the appointment order that became ineffective by the introduction of the new sub-section. In other words, as the provision for discharge after the expiry of the period provided for in the unamended sub-section (4) has been taken away in the new sub-section and though a period is mentioned in the appointment order that became ineffective by the introduction of the new sub-section. Every teacher appointed in a private college has to be on probation for a minimum period of one year and therefore even though a period less than one year is provided for in the appointment order, that will be against the statutory provisions and hence invalid. This, in short, is the contention of the petitioner. 3. S.55 (1) does not prohibit the right of the management to appoint a teacher for a period less than one year though the appointment is against a substantive vacancy. That sub-section only means that a teacher must be on probation for a period of at least one year. If be is in service for one year or more he gets a right for confirmation. That is the scope of sub-section (4). old as well as new. That sub-section has application only to a situation of successful completion of probation. If the probation has to be for a minimum period of at least one year, there is no scope for applying sub-section (4). The amendment of the Act during the period of the appointment in this case does not alter the situation. As sub-section (4) has no application here, the duration of the appointment must be governed by the terms of the appointment order. The appointment order was only for a period of less than an year. Therefore, is the absence of any restriction, express or implied, against an appointment for a period of less than one year the management will be perfectly within its rights and will not be violating any law in discharging a teacher after the period of appointment. That is the case here. Since sub-section (4) has no application, the Vice-Chancellor's order dismissing the appeal is correct and does not call for any interference. 4. It was contended that though the petitioner's term of appointment ended with 31-3-1971 she was paid her salary for the months of April and May and therefore she cannot be taken as discharged on 31-3-1971. The management was bound to pay her salary during the vacation as per the provisions of the University Ordinances then in force. 4. It was contended that though the petitioner's term of appointment ended with 31-3-1971 she was paid her salary for the months of April and May and therefore she cannot be taken as discharged on 31-3-1971. The management was bound to pay her salary during the vacation as per the provisions of the University Ordinances then in force. That will not extend her period of appointment and even if it is assumed to be so, that also ceased by the end of May and that will not enable the petitioner to complete an year of probation to get a right for confirmation under sub-section (4) of S.55. Therefore, that contention of the petitioner on this ground also is unsustainable. 5. No other point arises for determination in this case. 6. In the result, this original petition fails. It is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.