JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J . 1. BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20-4-1979 (Annexure 5 to the petition), to the effect that temporary service of petitioner as Assistant Teacher would not be required after a month. 2. Some portrayal of essential facts appears necessary. Shri Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Raniganj, Kathola, Pratapgarh, (for short the College) is an affiliated College of Dr. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and is governed by the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short the Act) and the statutes framed thereunder. The College imparts education for the examination and degrees of Prathama to Acharya in Sanskrit language. The petitioner was appointed by a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 26-2-76 as Assistant Teacher with effect from 1-3-76 on probation for one year (Annexure 1 to the petition). The appointment of petitioner was approved by the Asstt. Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas. The petitioner completed the year of probation and his services were not terminated during probation period, rather the petitioner's services were approved by the Assistant Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas vide his letter dated 16-1-77 (vide Annexure 2-A to the petition). It is alleged that some deductions from the petitioner was made by the principal to which the petitioner and other teachers resented and the Principal replied that the Manager was responsible for the same (vide Annexure 4 to the petition). It appears that on account of the letter (Annexure 4 to the petition) the termination of service of petitioner was manipulated. The petitioner was not appointed as Science Teacher. He was attending the College but was not permitted to sign the attendance register. The petitioner alleged that the order of termination was manifestly erroneous inasmuch as he became permanent and was appointed in substantive vacancy. Hence his services could not be terminated by giving one month's notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was appointed after following the procedure prescribed and was appointed on probation for a period of one year and his services were made permanent (vide Annexure 2-A to the petition) and could not have been terminated treating him to be a temporary teacher and the petitioner was not a Science Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was appointed after following the procedure prescribed and was appointed on probation for a period of one year and his services were made permanent (vide Annexure 2-A to the petition) and could not have been terminated treating him to be a temporary teacher and the petitioner was not a Science Teacher. The basic fact in the impugned order (Annexure 5 to the petition) that the Science subject in the College was not approved, was not correct fact, hence the order of termination proceeds on erroneous basis. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that as the case arose within Pratapgarh district hence the writ petition must have been filed at Lucknow, that the petitioner was not appointed by the selection committee duly constituted nor the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor was obtained nor the result of selection committee was communicated to Vice-Chancellor for approval. The petitioner could not be deemed to have been validly appointed. Apart from that as the petitioner continued to be a temporary teacher in the College, hence the impugned order treating him to be temporary teacher has been correctly passed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the points for our determination are as to whether the writ petition was maintainable at Allahabad or at Lucknow Bench; whether the petitioner was appointed after obtaining prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor as required by Section 31 (ii) (a) of the Act; and whether the recommendation of selection committee was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. As regards the maintainability of writ petition either at Lucknow or at Allahabad, in view of Amalgamation Order it has to be ascertain as to whether the cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad. Article 226 (2) of the Constitution was amended by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 and now it has been provided that the power conferred by Clause 1 to issue directions, order or writs to any Government or authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which cause of action wholly or in part arises for the exercise of such power. In the present case the petitioner was made permanent by order of the Inspector Sanskrit Pathshalas at Allahabad. In the present case the petitioner was made permanent by order of the Inspector Sanskrit Pathshalas at Allahabad. The office of Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas is not situated at Pratapgarh or in any other district within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench. In this way the cause of action in part arose at Allahabad and the present petition could be entertained at Allahabad. Hence this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and we need not transfer the same to Lucknow Bench. 5. Coming to the next question as to whether the petitioner could have been appointed without the approval of Vice-Chancellor, suffice it to say that Section 1 (3) of the Act enacts that in its application to Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya or the Dr. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya the State Government may, from time to time by a notification in the Gazette, make such exceptions or modifications not affecting the substance under the provisions of the Act, as the circumstances may require. So many teachers appears to have been appointed before the enforcement of the Act without the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. It accordingly engaged the attention of State Government to make suitable amendment so that appointment of those persons without the prior approval of Vice-Chancellor may not be deemed to have become illegal. Consequently, Appendix 8 was added to the Act by notification dated 11-12-74, published in Extraordinary Gazette dated December 11, 1974 providing exceptions and modifications in different Sections of the Act in its application to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya or the Colleges affiliated to it. It is noticeable that under Chapter VI, Section 31 of the Act, dealing with appointment and conditions of service of teachers and officers, drastic changes in the form of exceptions and modifications have been made and Section 31 (ii) dealing with approval of Vice-Chancellor before appointment of a teacher or lecturer in the College has been omitted. Similarly some other material procedure applicable to other Universities u/Sec 31 has been omitted. In this way even though the petitioner was appointed without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, in that event that provision would not be applicable to the case of teachers in the college affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. The petitioner's services therefore could not be challenged on the ground that he was not appointed with prior approval of Vice-Chancellor. 6. In this way even though the petitioner was appointed without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, in that event that provision would not be applicable to the case of teachers in the college affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. The petitioner's services therefore could not be challenged on the ground that he was not appointed with prior approval of Vice-Chancellor. 6. Now reverting to the point as to whether the petitioner was a temporary teacher, suffice it to say that the petitioner was appointed on probation from 1-3-76 for a period of one year and he was confirmed on that post by the Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas by letter dated 16-10-77 (vide Annexure 2-A to the petition). In this view of the matter the petitioner could not be treated to be a temporary teacher in the College and the order dated 20-4-79 terminating the services of the petitioner treating him to be a temporary teacher appears to be manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained. In the result, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-4-79 is quashed. The respondents, including the Inspector Sanskrit Pathshalas U. P. Allahabad are directed to reinstate the petitioner and to pay the entire back salary and other emoluments to which the petitioner was entitled till this date within a period of three months and to continue to pay him the salary and other emoluments admissible under law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.