JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - The petitioner claim es that he is entitled to officiate as the Acting Principal of the College, as the order extending the term of respondent no. 4 as Principal of the College is bad in law. He has, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the order, dated 5th January, 1985 passed by the State Government extending the term of respondent no. 4 as Principal until 30th June, 1985. 2. An interim order had been passed by the Court on 17th January, 1985 staying the operation of the order dated 5th January, 1985 which has been extending from time to time till 30th April, 1985. The period has also expired. 3. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The extension of the term is challenged on the ground that the extension has not been ordered within the per view of Regulation 21 of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. This contention has no force in view of the fact that over all power of granting extension lies with the State Government under Section 9 (4) of the above Act. That provision confers wide powers on the State Government and whenever the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action, it can pass order or take such other action consistent with the provisions of the Act as deemed necessary. 5. Another question, which is of importance, concerns the right of the petitioner to challenge the order. The petitioner is admittedly not the senior - most teacher of the institution. He did not have an automatic right to officiate. He was third in order of seniority and Since the other two senior teachers were not available for the time being to shoulder the responsibility, the petitioner staked his claim to officiate as the Principal, admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the earlier extension of the term of respondent no. 4 from 1st July to 31st Dec. 1984. We do not think that the petitioner has matured any right to do so. 6. The extension granted by the State Government is up to 30th June, 1985. That period is less than two months away. 4 from 1st July to 31st Dec. 1984. We do not think that the petitioner has matured any right to do so. 6. The extension granted by the State Government is up to 30th June, 1985. That period is less than two months away. There is no question of any irreparable loss or harm being caused to the interest of the petitioner if he does not officiate as the Principal. The interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court has come to an end on 30th April, 1985 and we see no reason to extend the time any further. Last time it was extended on the ground that the change of the Centre Superintendent, when the Board's examination was imminent, may cause dislocation. We see no reason to extend the interim order any further. 7. For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is dismissed.