Short Note : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner wanted that the order dated 9th August 1967 terminating his services, should be quashed. In the alternative, the petitioner wanted his salary on reappointment by order dated 1st September 1967, should be fixed in accordance with F.R. 22. Held: In the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner's first appointment as Lecturer in the Education service by order dated 30th December 1960 was not only officiating but also temporary until further orders. It could, therefore, be terminated by a month's notice. It appears that the petitioner was M.A. in Third Division. By letter dated 24th April 1965 he was informed to improve his division by the end of June 1968. 3. The petitioner relied upon this letter and contends that his services could not be terminated before June 1968. The letter dated 24th April 1965 giving time to the petitioner to improve his division before June 1968 was not an assurance by the Government to keep the petitioner in service till at least June 1963. As regards the contention that the petitioner's salary, after his re-appointment by order dated 1st September, 1967, should be fixed under rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules, it has to be noted that the said rule applies when a Government servant is appointed substantively to a post. The re-appointment of the petitioner was also in officiating capacity temporarily until further orders. Such an appointment cannot be called a substantive appointment. F.R. 22 will, therefore, not come into play. P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 p. 42 relied on.