Dalveer Bhandari, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE respondent Delhi Productivity Council by the order dated 21. 4. 1994 has of- fered a teaching post to the petitioner on a trial basis w. e. f. 1. 7. 1996 for six months. The order dated 21. 4. 1994 reads as under: Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Bhalla, B-127, Anand Vihar, I. P. Extension, Delhi-110092. Ref. : Your interview and discussion with the Selection Committee on 12. 4. 94 Madam, The Selection Committee is pleased to offer you a teaching assignment to teach PGDBA students on a trial basis with effect from 1st July, 1994 for six months. It will be reviewed thereafter for regular appointment. The consolidated emoluments during trial period will be Rs. 4,000. 00. The assignment can be terminated at any time. You should send your acceptance by 15th Mary, 1994 to the undersigned. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, sd/- - (B. C. Jaiswal) Administrative Officer ( 2 ) THE petitioner accepted the offer vide her acceptance letter dated 26. 4. 1994. The said acceptance letter reads as under: Shri B. C. Jaiswal, Administrative Officer, Institute of Management Sciences and Producitivity Research, 1/e10, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 Sir, Reference your letter No. DPC. 94-95/03 dated 21st April, 1994 offering a teaching assignment on trial basis for a period of six months, I convey my acceptance. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Mrs. Sandhya Bhalla) ( 3 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court when she after the expiry of the period of six months. She was not given further extension. By this petition the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 26. 12. 1994 be quashed. The said order reads as under: Dr. (Mrs.) S. Bhalla, IMSPR Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. Reference this office letter No. DPC/94- 95/03 dated 21. 4. 1994 competent authority has decided to inform you that your services are no more required after the close of office hours on 31. 12. 1994. You are requested to please apprise the work position to Shri S. L. Gupta, Asslt. Director and hand over the charge to him. Your dues will be paid on receipt of NOC of Library and Examination section. sd/- (B. C. Jaiswal) Administrative Officer ( 4 ) THIS is not disputed that all the dues of the petitioner have already been paid to her. Director and hand over the charge to him. Your dues will be paid on receipt of NOC of Library and Examination section. sd/- (B. C. Jaiswal) Administrative Officer ( 4 ) THIS is not disputed that all the dues of the petitioner have already been paid to her. In para 9 of the writ petition the petitioner submits that she was informed verbally by the Director of respondent No. 1 that the feed back received from the students in regard to the petitioner was not good and that she was considered to be a partial to a few students. It is also mentioned in this para that the petitioner was further asked to be informed verbally on 13. 12. 1994 by the Controller of Examination that there were charges against her that she had leaked the paper of Management Concept and Organization Theory to the students before the paper commenced. The petitioner, therefore, immediately on 20th December, 1994 gave a written representation denying the verbal charges levelled against her. The Controller of Examination is not a party before this Court. ( 5 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Delhi Productivity Council. In para 9 of the writ petition. it is replied that the averments made in para 9 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. The story made in this para is concocted. ( 6 ) MR. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for, the respondents submits that the petitioner was specifically appointed for a period of six months on trial basis and after the expiry of the period her services were not continued. She has not been removed by levelling any charge against her. Mr. Sharma also stated that this assignment was for fixed term and after expiry of that period (as envisaged in the appointment letter) her services were not continued. ( 7 ) THE respondent has also taken the preliminary objection in the counter affidavit that the respondent Delhi Productivity Council is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and this writ petition is not maintainable. I do not think it necessary to decide this preliminary submission since even on merit, I am of the view that the averments of the petition reveal that there are highly disputed questions of facts which cannot be determined in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not think it necessary to decide this preliminary submission since even on merit, I am of the view that the averments of the petition reveal that there are highly disputed questions of facts which cannot be determined in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) THERE is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. The Writ petition and civil miscellaneous applications are accordingly disposed of.