ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri S. Paul. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the principal in a college known as Danielson Degree College, Chhindwara. On attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years he was superannuated on 30th November, 1994 but the retirement was given on 30th April, 1995 as the academic session was not complete on 30th November, 1994. In paragraph 5 of the petition it has been stated that considering the good services of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 Institution decided on an application of the petitioner for grant of his extension of services from 1-5-1995 to 30th June, 1996. From this it is evident that the petitioner moved for extension of his services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any statutory provision which could be enforced by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the matter of extension was considered by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of recommendation of governing body, the respondent No. 1 and the extension was refused. 4. Extension of service is not a right of any individual. Even if rules have provided for extension that depends upon the wishes of the employer and the position of the person seeking extension but in either case there exists no enforceable right under Article 226 of the Constitution. Next, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the similar situation in another college the Principal was given extension on the basis of the direction by this Court under its order dated 28-4-1995 Annexure-P/4. This Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 1264/95 did not give any direction for granting extension to the petitioner in that petition but only disposed of the petition with the direction to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the recommendation of the Governing Body and to take a final decision in accordance with law in the matter of the petitioner's continuance as recommended by the Governing Body within a period of 30 days from today. Consequent upon this, the concerned authorities considered the recommendation and might have granted extension. 5. 2 and 3 to consider the recommendation of the Governing Body and to take a final decision in accordance with law in the matter of the petitioner's continuance as recommended by the Governing Body within a period of 30 days from today. Consequent upon this, the concerned authorities considered the recommendation and might have granted extension. 5. This decision has no application, so far as the present petition is concerned as in the present petition decision on the basis of the recommendation of the Governing Body has already been taken on 27-6-1995. 6. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, this order will not cause any impediment in the way of the petitioner in availing any other forum under the law as may be available either by re-approaching the concerned authorities for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the extension granted to other Principal Shri T. S. Thakur or to approach the Civil Court, as he may be advised. 7. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges.