( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High court in Civil Miscellaneous writ Petition No. 8225 of 1980 declaring that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed on a permanent basis as Assistant professor in the appellants college and that he was entitled to hold that post. ( 2 ) THE respondent was appointed to a temporary post against a leave vacancy for a period expiring on 15/10/1972. This appointment was made as no person was found suitable for appointment to the permanent post of Assistant Professor which had been duly advertised and for which a selection was held. The respondent was one of the candidates who appeared for the selection. Before the selection was held, it was notified to all the candidates that in addition to the two permanent posts advertised, there was a temporary post against a leave vacancy. ( 3 ) THE Selection Committee found that no candidate was suitable for appointment to a permanent post of Assistant Professor. The respondent was, however, offered a temporary post by order dated 20/9/1971 in the leave vacancy. This post was accepted by him without protest. He willingly joined duty on 21/9/1971. ( 4 ) ON termination of the leave vacancy, the respondent was reverted to the substantive post of a Lecturer which was the post that he held prior to his appointment as Assistant Professor in the leave vacancy. ( 5 ) THE respondent sent representation after representation protesting against his reversion. Finally he filed a writ petition challenging his reversion to his substantive post. ( 6 ) MR. Mehrotra, appearing for the respondents, submits that the High court following its earlier decision, rightly held that a person who was a candidate for selection for appointment to a permanent post ought not to have been appointed to a temporary post. That decision of thehigh court, in our view, was wrongly followed by the High court on the facts of this case because it related to the case of a person who was appointed to a temporary post after finding him suitable for appointment to a permanent post. In the instant case, none of the candidates including the respondent, who appeared before the Selection Committee, was found suitable for the permanent posts which had been advertised. In the instant case, none of the candidates including the respondent, who appeared before the Selection Committee, was found suitable for the permanent posts which had been advertised. It was in such circumstances that an offer was made to the respondent for appointment to a temporary post and that offer was willingly accepted by him. Mr. Mehrotra refers to sub-section, (3 (b) of Section 31 of the U. P. State University Act and submits that the respondent ought not to have been denied appointment to a permanent post. We have carefully examined the provisions of that sub-section, and we are of the view that it has no application to the facts of this case. ( 7 ) THE High court was not justified in directing the appellant to offer a permanent post to the respondent. He had no right to a permanent post. He had been found unsuitable for appointment to such a post. He could not permanently occupy a temporary post created against a leave vacancy. On the expire of that vacancy, he was rightly reverted to his substantive post. He had no right to remain in the higher post longer than the period of leave which gave rise to the vacancy. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the High court under appeal. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The parties shall, however, bear their respective costs.