This is an unfortunate case, in which the respondent authorities have dispensed the services of the petitioner with effect from 2-8-1992, on the alleged ground of abolition of post, which has been termed as non-sanction of the post by the State Government, as observed by Sri C. P. N. Singh, Chancellor of the Kanpur University. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 14-3-1984, passed by the Chancellor, Kanpur University, set out in Annexure-12 to the writ petition. 3. It appears from the impugned order dated 14-3-1984 that Sri Jagdamba Prasad Pandey,, the petitioner herein, who had put in eight years of service as Director of Physical Education, in Bhavans Mehta Mahavidyalaya, Bharwari, Allahabad, but his services have been dispensed with by the respondent authorities by the aforesaid impugned order, on the ground of abolition of post. As such, by means of present writ petition, the peti tioner has challenged the termination of his services on the alleged plea of abolition of post. 4. It has been stated by the petitioner in his representation, which was dealt with by Chancellor of Kanpur University, in exercise of powers under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, that the Vice-Chancel lor of the University has not given any final decision in the matter. The petitioner has also stated that he was not given any copy of the order of Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner accordingly submitted reference under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, on the ground that since the Vice- Chancellor has given approval under Section 35 (2) of the Act for termina tion of his services, his services could not be terminated. 5. The Chancellor has also taken into consideration the comments sent by the management, in which it was submitted that although the College in which the petitioner was teaching was affiliated to the Kanpur University, but the petitioner is not a teacher within the meaning of the Act, hence provisions of Section 35 (2) of the Act are not applicable in his case. According to the Chancellor the petitioner comes in the category of non-teaching staff, and, the management continued to pay its staff from its own funds till 1972, when the college was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government. According to the Chancellor the petitioner comes in the category of non-teaching staff, and, the management continued to pay its staff from its own funds till 1972, when the college was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government. As according to the norms of the Directorate of Higher Education, the present college which was a c grade college did not qualify for sanction of the post of Director, Physical Education, the same was not sanctioned and the post had to be abolished, and the services of the peti tioner were terminated with effect from 2-8-1992. 6. It has been further observed by the Chancellor in the aforesaid impugned order that the order, terminating the services of the petitioner was not passed by any officer, or authority of the University. No order of any of the Officer or authority of the University exists also regarding approving or disapproving the termination of the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner cannot be treated as maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, and, the petitioner is entitled to no relief from the Chancellor, under the aforesaid section. 7. After placing the aforesaid observations and/or decision of the Chancellor, Sri A. P. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tie order of Chancellor,, dated 14-3-1984 cannot be sustained in law. 8. We have gone through the facts stated in the instant writ petition in detail, and we are of the view that since the termination of services of the petitioner as Director of Physical Education, Bhavans Mehta College, Bharwari, Allahabad is by reason of abolition of post, it does not attract the provisions of Articles 19 (i) or 311 of the Constitution of India, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M. Ramanatha Pillai v. Stale of Kerala, 1974 (1) SLR (SC) 225: 1974 (1) SCR 515 -520, wherein following observations have been made : "the abolition of post may have the consequence of termination of service of a Government servant. Such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not therefore arise in the case of abolition of post. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant. Such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not therefore arise in the case of abolition of post. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant. The abolition of post is an executive policy decision. Whether after abolition of the post the Government servant who was holding the post would or could be offered any employment under the State would therefore be a matter of policy decision of the Government because the abolition of post does not confer on the person holding the abolished post any right to hold the post. " 9. In the case of Dr. N. C. Singhal v. Union of India and others, 1980 (2) SLR 118 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows : "constitution of India, Articles 73, 162 and 226-Writ jurisdiction- Mala fide-Creation or abolition of post- upon the needs, require ment of general public and necessity of internal administration-In absence of requisite material the court cannot interpose its own decision on the necessity of creation or abolition of posts. " 10. Apart from above two decisions, there is another decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. S, D. R. Sangar, 1976 (1) SLR (SC) 191, wherein same view has been taken. 9 Further at the time of moving of the writ petition, on 24-7-1986 Honble V. N. Khare, J. has only passed following interim order : "however, it is made clear that any appointment made on the post held by the petitioner shall be subject to the decision of-the writ petition. " 11. In the result, in view of what has been stated above, writ petition is dismissed. But before parting, this Court observes that if in future the State Government shoulders its responsibility of the financial burden for the aforesaid post of Director, Physical Education, then at that stage the petitioner should be given preference for getting appointment, and since he has served for eight years, and if he has crossed the age limit by this time, he should be given relaxation so that age factor may not come in his way for seeking appointment afresh, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .