JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the notice dated 30th May, 1976, issued by the Authorised Controller terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 30th June, 1976. 2. The facts leading up to the present petition are as under : The petitioner was working as a lecturer in the department of Sanskrit in T. D. Degree College, Jaunpur, which is affiliated to the University of Gorakhpur. Till 1970, the college was imparting education up to graduate level only. In the year 1970, it was up-graded to the post-graduate level. At the time of up gradation, the following permanent teachers with specialisation in particular subjects were there : - 1. Sri Shivadhar Singh Head of the Department. Sahitya 2. Dr. Sheo Shanker Singh Lecturer Bhartiya Darshan 3. Dr. Shaktiman Singh Lecturer Sahitya 3. Consequent upon the up-gradation, three more lecturers were appointed. Out of three, appointments of two were approved by the Gorakhpur University to which the College is affiliated to teach Ved and Vyakaran. The sanction was accorded, as there was no teacher to teach these papers in the College. 4. It appears that those teachers later abandoned their posts and thereupon Sri K. C. Sharma Dave (Ved) Sri Sabal Mitra (Vyakaran) and Smt. Sushila Singh (Sahitya) were appointed. These appointments were on ad-hoc basis and continued till 30th April, 1975' as the University did net approve their appointments, since they Were net selected by the Selection Committee. 5. Thereafter, advertisement was made for four lecturers in the Sanskrit Department to teach Sahitya, Ved, Vyakaran and Bhasha Vigyan. the petitioner as well as Smt. Sushila Singh, respondent no. s, among others, applied for the post. The petitioner applied for the pest of lecturer in Sanskrit with specification in Sahitya i. e. to teach Sahitya paper. 6. A Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(4) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, for selecting the candidates. This Committee inter viewed the candidates and made its recommendations for different papers and subjects specifying the names of the candidates selected to teach different pipers. The petitioner and Smt. Sushila Singh, respondent no. 5, were selected to teach Sahitya papers. Sri Sabal Mitra was selected to teach Vyakaran. This Committee inter viewed the candidates and made its recommendations for different papers and subjects specifying the names of the candidates selected to teach different pipers. The petitioner and Smt. Sushila Singh, respondent no. 5, were selected to teach Sahitya papers. Sri Sabal Mitra was selected to teach Vyakaran. Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma Dave was selected to teach Ved and Sri Kunj Bshari Panday was selected to teach Bhasha Vigyan. The report of the Selection Committee was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 2nd June, 1976, and the petitioner and Smt. Sushila Singh were appointed to the post of lecturer in Sanskrit in T. D. College, Jaunpur in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 per month in accordance with the temporary approval of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Gorakhpur, vide Universitys letter No. 9620-21/ Sambadbia-Anu/1975-76, dated January 22, 1976. It was clearly said in the letter of appointment that the above appointment and post is sanctioned up to February 29, ;976. and is purely temporary, which is liable for termination at any time without prior notice. It is likely to continue further in accordance with the terms and conditions, mentioned above. The letter of appointment directed the petitioner and respondent no. 5 to join their duties latest by 31st January, 1976, failing which their sanction and appointments shall be treated as cancelled. A copy of the letter of appointment has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition. 7. It appears that the then Authorised Controller wrote a letter dated 19th September, 1975, to the Director of Higher Education for according sanction to the four posts in Sanskrit Department for which the selection was held. The Director of Higher Education, U.P. Allahabad, accorded his approval for one post only by his letter dated 18th October, 1975. He, later on, granted approval for another post by his letter dated 11th December, 1975. The approval was granted with the condition that both the posts were temporary and were to continue till 29th February, 1976. The then Authorised Controller in his letter dated 19th September, 1975, had clearly stressed the importance for sanction of pests for Vyakaran and Ved. He, later on, granted approval for another post by his letter dated 11th December, 1975. The approval was granted with the condition that both the posts were temporary and were to continue till 29th February, 1976. The then Authorised Controller in his letter dated 19th September, 1975, had clearly stressed the importance for sanction of pests for Vyakaran and Ved. The same thing was reiterated again by the Authorised Controller by his letter dated 14th January, 1976, that against the two posts sanctioned by the Director of Higher Education, appointment of teachers with specialisation in Ved and Vyakaran should be made, as it was a long felt necessity in the College and further that there was no teacher to teach those papers in the College. A true copy of the letter dated 14th January, 1976, has been filed as Annexure 'CA-5' along with the counter-affidavit of Mata Palat, Dealing Assistant in the Establishment work of Tilakdhari Degree College. 8. The Vice-Chancellor, however, accorded approval for the appointment of the petitioner as well as Smt. Sushila Singh against the two posts sanctioned. Later on, the Director of Higher Education, in exercise of his power under Section 58 (5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, issued a Circular letter dated 23rd April, 1976, filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, to the effect that where appointments had been made on the recommendations made by the duly constituted Selection Committee, appointments should not be terminated before 30th June, 1976. 9. In view of the aforesaid Circular letter, the appointment of the petitioner and Smt. Sushila Singh appears to have been extended till 30th June, 1976. The then Authorised Controller however by means of the impugned notice dated 30th May, 1976, terminated the appointment of the petitioner as well as Smt. Sushila Singh with effect from 30th June, 1976, afternoon. 10. The Director of Higher Education by his letter dated 2nd June, 1976, extended the term of one post of lecturer in Sanskrit till 30th June, 1977, but there was no sanction for extending the term of the other post The then Authorised Controller tried his best to get sanction for the other post also. The Director of Higher Education, hewer, by his letter dated 24th June, 1976, extended the term of the other post also, but, till 31st August, 1976, only, as is clear from Annexure 'CA-7' to the counter-affidavit of Mata Palat. The Director of Higher Education, hewer, by his letter dated 24th June, 1976, extended the term of the other post also, but, till 31st August, 1976, only, as is clear from Annexure 'CA-7' to the counter-affidavit of Mata Palat. 11. Pursuant to the said letter, the notice dated 30th May, 1976, terminating the services of the petitioner, was recalled, as the term of her appointment was extended till 3lst August, 1976. The result was that the term of one post-, in Sanskrit Department, was extended up to 31st August, 1976, and the term of the other post was extended up to 30th June, 977. A question, therefore, arose as to which of the two teachers was to be retained inasmuch as both of them could not be accommodated on one post. The length of service and date of both the petitioners as well as Smt. Sushila Singh were the same. 12. The then Authorised Controller acting on the basis of Statute 6 of Chapter XVII of the First Statute framed by the Gorakhpur University decided to retain Smt. Sushila Singh as she was ten tears older according to the date of birth submitted by her and the petitioner. The date of birth of Smt. Sushila Singh was 10th February, 1943, whereas the date of birth of Smt. Nirupa Singh was 20th July, 1953. It further appears that Smt. Sushila Singh had a greater teaching experience. She was appointed in the year 1972 in the College and bought till 30th April, 1975. The petitioner, on the other hand, had no teaching experience at all, as is clear from the application form, which she submitted, marked as Annexure CA-8 to the counter-affidavit of Mata Palat. Besides, Smt. Sushila Singh had specialised in Ved and Literature papers, and as there was acute shortage of teachers in the College of this subject, Smt. Sushila Singh, respondent no. 5 was retained in preference to the petitioner. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the notice terminating the services of the petitioner, she has approached this Court to vindicate her rights by filing the present petition. 14. The contention raised by Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was better qualified than respondent no. 5 and thus the petitioner was kept as serial no. 1 while Mat-Sushila Singh was kept at serial no, 2 by the Selection Committee on the basis of merit. 14. The contention raised by Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was better qualified than respondent no. 5 and thus the petitioner was kept as serial no. 1 while Mat-Sushila Singh was kept at serial no, 2 by the Selection Committee on the basis of merit. If only one of the two was to be retained as the term of only one post had been extended then the petitioner should have been retained in preference to respondent no. 5. In support of his contention, Sri V. B. Singh referred to the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 1st September, 1975. A true copy of the same has been filed along with the counter-affidavit of Mata Palat. The relevant portion of the recommendations of the Selection Committee reads as under : - "Item No. 6. The Committee considered all the candidates and made the following selections unanimously : - Sahitya 1. Smt. Nirupa Singh 2. Smt. Sushila Singh Vyakaran 1. Sri Sabal Mitra. Ved 1. Sri Kailash Chandra Dave. Bhasha Vigyan 1. Sri Kunj Behari Pandey." 15. The aforesaid recommendation indicate that Smt. Nirupa Singh was kept at serial no. 1 in Sahitya group because she was bound to be more meritorious. Most probably, Smt. Nirupa Singh was kept at serial no. 1 alphabetically. In that view of the matter, Smt. Sushila of the Selection Committee does not Singh would naturally be kept after Smt. Nirupa Singh. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, falls to the ground. 16. It was next contended for the petitioner that she was appointed as a permanent teacher to teacher Sahitya and, therefore, her services could not be terminated by means of the impugned notice. 17. It was further contended that in view of the circular letter dated 23rd April, 1976, (filed as Annexure 6' to the petition), the services of the petitioner, who was appointed before 30th June, 1976 on the recommendation of a duly appointed Selection Committee and approved by the Vice-Chancellor, could not be terminated before 30th June, 1976. 18. This argument proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner ,was appointed as a permanent teacher. But this is a wrong assumption. Neither the advertisement nor the appointment letter nor the sanction by the Vice-Chancellor indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent teacher. 18. This argument proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner ,was appointed as a permanent teacher. But this is a wrong assumption. Neither the advertisement nor the appointment letter nor the sanction by the Vice-Chancellor indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent teacher. Rather they clearly show that the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis. If the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed period, her services would come to an end after the expiry of the said period. This other contentions as well has no force inasmuch as the impugned notice dated 30th May, 1976, has already been withdrawn by the Authorised Controller by his letter dated 29th June, 1976, in view of the extension granted to the post by the Director of Higher Education by his letter dated 24th June, 1976, till 31st August, 1976, and the petitioner by the same letter dated 29th June, 1976, was allowed to continue work till 31st August, 1976. 19. The petitioner, however, prays for quashing of the notice dated 30th May, 1976, which, in fact, has already been withdrawn. The writ petition could be dismissed on the technical ground that the notice dated 30th May, 1976, has already been withdrawn and, therefore, there is no question of quashing the notice dated 31st May, 1976. But we did not think it advisable to do so and chose to deal with the various pleas taken by the petitioner in her petition, 20. It appears that after 31st August, 1976, only one post of Sanskrit has been extended up to June, 1977. Therefore, a question arose that both the teachers, i. e. the petitioners and respondent no. 5 could not be accommodated on one post. The Authorised Controller, therefore, had to chose one of them. In para 19 of the counter-affidavit of Mata Palat, it has been averred that the length of service and date of appointment of both the petitioners as well as of Smt. Sushila Singh were the same. Therefore, the then Authorised Controller acting on the basis of Statute 6 of Chapter XVII of the First Statute framed by the Gorakhpur University, decided to retain Smt. Sushila Singh, as she was ten years older according to the date of birth submitted by her and the petitioner. Therefore, the then Authorised Controller acting on the basis of Statute 6 of Chapter XVII of the First Statute framed by the Gorakhpur University, decided to retain Smt. Sushila Singh, as she was ten years older according to the date of birth submitted by her and the petitioner. The date of birth of Smt. Sushila Singh is 10th February, 1943, whereas the date of birth of the petitioner Smt. Nirupa Singh is 20th July, 1953. Smt. Sushila Singh had a greater teaching experience inasmuch as she was appointed in the year 1972 in the College and taught till 30th April, 1975 The petitioner, on the other hand, had no teaching experience at all when she was appointed, which is clear form the application from which she submitted Besides, Smt. Sushila Singh had specialised in Ved and Literature papers and there was acute shortage of teachers in the College to teach Ved. On all these considerations, Smt. Sushila Singh was thought to be a better qualified person is be retained in preference to the petitioner and, we think that the criteria applied for retaining Su.t. Sushila Singh, in preference to the petitioner are fully warranted by the Statute as well as other relevant considerations. 21. The petitioners contention has been mainly on the basis that she was given the first place by the Selection Committee while recommending the names of the candidates selected, but this contention, in our opinion, is not coned. The Selection Committee has not given any indication that serial no. 1 was given in order of merit. It may just be only on alphabetical basis. 22. It was next contended that the approval of the Vice-Chancellor has not been obtained before issuing the notice of termination of service. This argument is also devoid of 3any force. The petitioner was appointed on temporary post for a fixed period, which was extended from time to time and on the expiry of the fixed period, the services of the petitioner automatically came to an end. The impugned notice terminating the services of the petitioner was rightly given to the petitioner by the Authorised Controller and no approval of the Vice-Chancellor was necessary within the meaning of Section 35 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 23. Lastly, it was urged that the order terminating the services of the petitioner by the Authorised Controller was mala fide. 23. Lastly, it was urged that the order terminating the services of the petitioner by the Authorised Controller was mala fide. Allegations about mala fide are more easily made than made out. No foundation has been laid in the petition and there is absolutely no proof of the mafa fides on the part of the Authorised Controller in terminating the services of the petitioner, who was appointed purely on a temporary basis. The grounds on which the Authorised Controller chose to retain Smt. Sushila Singh, respondent no. 5 in preference to the petitioner seem to be well founded and, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the notice of termination given to the petitioner. 24. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition has no force. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.