ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - These are thirty-one petitions which raise common question of law and fact. All these petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners were employed in the U.P. Food and Civil Supplies Department as temporary Government Servants. The terms and conditions of their services were regulated by the Notification dated 30th January, 1953. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 4777, 4540 and 4502 of 1974 were appointed as peons while the petitioners in rest of the petitions were appointed to the post of Supply Inspectors, all in temporary capacity, The services of these petitioners have been terminated by different orders passed by the District Magistrate of the district concerned where they were posted in July, 1974. The validity of the termination orders have been challenged in all these petitions. 3. Sri S.C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that clause 2 of the notification dated 30th January, 1953, required that notice of termination must recite that the services of the Government servant were to terminate after one month or, in the alternative, it must state that the period of one month's notice was being substituted by payment of one month's salary. In the absence of recital of one month's notice or that of one month's salary, the notice terminating the services of temporary Government servant could not be in accordance with the provisions contained in the aforesaid notification and the same would be illegal and void. It is true that in some of the petitions neither the period of notice is mentioned nor the offer of pay of one month to the petitioners has been recited in the impugned termination orders. The orders, on the other hand, recite that the services of the petitioners are terminated forthwith in terms of the notification dated 30-1-1953 applicable to temporary Government servants. 4. In Director of Technical Education, U.P., Kanpur v. John Mohammad, (1975) 1 All LR 8 : (1975 Lab IC 685) a Division Bench of this Court considered this question. The Bench held that mention of one month's notice or recital about offer of one month's salary to the Government servant was not a condition precedent and as such an order terminating the services of a Government servant without slating anything therein about, period of notice or payment of one month's salary was not an invalid order. 5. The Bench held that mention of one month's notice or recital about offer of one month's salary to the Government servant was not a condition precedent and as such an order terminating the services of a Government servant without slating anything therein about, period of notice or payment of one month's salary was not an invalid order. 5. Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 4755, 4754, 4753 and 4757 of 1974 urged that the order of termination was illegal as the same had been passed merely on the ground to make room for others. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis on the post of Supply Inspectors. The posts of Supply Inspectors were within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission. Subsequently a regular selection was held by the Public Service Commission and thereafter those who were selected by the Public Service Commission were appointed by the Government and those who were appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis like the petitioners without selection by the Public Service Commission were retrenched. The petitioners were not selected by the Public Service Commission, hence they could not hold the post as of right. Once suitable persons were available for appointment after selection by the Public Service Commission, the Government was fully justified in terminating the petitioner's services and to appoint the selected hands. I thus find no illegality in the order of termination. 6. In Writ Petitions Nos. 4777, 4540 and 4502 of 1974 filed by the erstwhile peons and in Writ Petitions Nos. 4756, 4758, 4767, 4784, 4751, 4780, 5758, 4553, 4556, 4573, 4501, 6469, 5048, 6470, 4500, 4551, 4552 and 4766 of 1974 it has further been asserted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the sanction of temporary posts held by the petitioners in these cases expired on 31st July, 1974, as a result of which the petitioners' services were terminated. It is well settled that if post is abolished or if there is no further sanction for continuance of a post no Government servant can claim right to hold the post. If there was no sanction for the continuance of the post itself how the petitioners could claim any right to hold that post. It is well settled that if post is abolished or if there is no further sanction for continuance of a post no Government servant can claim right to hold the post. If there was no sanction for the continuance of the post itself how the petitioners could claim any right to hold that post. Once the post itself stands abolished the incumbent of that post ceases to have any right to hold that post. The impugned orders of termination in these cases do not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity. 7. In the result all the petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The stay orders are discharged.