A. N. GUPTA, R. P. NIGAM, JJ. ( 1 ) SMT. Sawarn Lata Srivastava, opposite party No. 8, was appointed on 25. 9. 1972 on regular basis as Lecturer in Raja Mohan Girls Post Graduate College, Falzabad. In Education department, the Committee of Management of which and the Principal are opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and she was removed from service as a result thereof with effect from 6. 4. 1978 after obtaining vice-Chancellors approval dated 18. 3. 1978 as required under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. She made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor against her order of dismissal under Section 68 of the said Act which was rejected on 18. 12. 1979, Thereafter, she preferred Writ Petition No. 826 (S/b) of 1980 which was allowed on 12. 3. 1997 by this Court. The order removing Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava from service and the order of Vice-Chancellor rejecting her representation were quashed with all consequential benefits. After Sawarn Lata Srivastava was removed from service and before her writ petition was allowed, the Management of the College issued an advertisement dated 15. 11. 1978 inviting the applications for temporary lady Lecturer which was likely to be made permanent in education Department. In pursuance of this advertisement, petitioner and several others applied and ultimately the petitioner was selected and the Vice-Chancellor by means of his letter dated 1. 3. 1979 sent to the Management of the institution granted approval for appointment of the petitioner as such because approval of Vice-Chancellor was required under Section 31 of the uttar Pradesh State Universities Act. 1973. In this letter, Vice-Chancellor had clearly mentioned that the post against which the petitioner was being appointed and for which the approval was being granted, had fallen vacant on account of termination of the services of Smt. Sawarn Lata srivastava. After receiving this approval. the Management of the Institution concerned Issued appointment letter dated 9. 3. 1979 in which it was mentioned that the petitioner was being appointed as Lecturer in Education Department for a period of one year with effect from 19. 3. 1979 on a temporary basis and her services were liable to be terminated on one months notice or one months pay in lieu thereof. This appointment was made after Selection Committee had selected the petitioner. 3. 1979 on a temporary basis and her services were liable to be terminated on one months notice or one months pay in lieu thereof. This appointment was made after Selection Committee had selected the petitioner. In pursuance of this letter of appointment, the petitioner took over on 19. 3. 1979. The services of the petitioner were extended for a further period of one year by means of letter dated 12. 2. 1980. Thereafter no formal extension of the services of the petitioner was made but she continued to work as Lecturer in Education Department in the said institution. However, no order of her confirmation on the post has been issued. In the meantime, petitioner was granted senior grade on 19. 3. 1987 and the selection grade was granted to her on 19. 3. 1992. ( 2 ) AFTER writ petition of Smt. Sawam Lata Srivastava was allowed on 12. 3. 1997 by this Curt quashing her removal from service, she was reinstated in service with effect from 11. 6. 1997. On 1st July, 1997 an order terminating the services of the petitioner was issued by the Management of the Institution stating therein that since writ petition of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava had been allowed, that order had to be obeyed and she has been given back the charge with effect from 11. 6. 1997 and, therefore, service of the petitioner stood automatically terminated and it will not be possible for the Management to give salaries to two persons against one post. This order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. ( 3 ) IT is also necessary to mention here before proceeding further that in the meantime another post of Lecturer in Education Department were created in the college. Smt. Geeta Singh, opposite party No. 9, was appointed against the said post on ad hoc basts with effect from 1. 1. 1990 and the approval was granted by the Vice-Chancellor by means of his letter dated 14. 12. 1989. Subsequently, services of Smt. Geeta Singh was regularised with effect from 20. 6. 1992 as provided under the relevant law. Smt. Geeta Singh, opposite party No. 9, was appointed against the said post on ad hoc basts with effect from 1. 1. 1990 and the approval was granted by the Vice-Chancellor by means of his letter dated 14. 12. 1989. Subsequently, services of Smt. Geeta Singh was regularised with effect from 20. 6. 1992 as provided under the relevant law. ( 4 ) AT present Smt. Geeta Singh, opposite party No. 9, and Smt. Sawaran Lata Srivastava, opposite parly No. 8 are working on the post of Lecturers in Education Department in Raja mohan Girls Post Graduate College, Faizabad, but the petitioner is not at present working as lecturer as her services have been terminated on 1. 7. 1997. The question for consideration is as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is legal or not. Since, the petitioner had been appointed against the vacancy created by removal from service of Smt. Sawarn Lata srivastava, her appointment obviously is contingent upon the validity of the removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava from the post. Since, writ petition of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava was allowed with all consequential benefits, she was rightly reinstated and therefore, so far as petitioner is concerned, her services got terminated automatically because there is only one post against which Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava had been working and salary for two persons cannot be paid against one sanctioned post. In any case, since Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava was appointed to the post and her removal from service had been quashed, she was entitled to be reinstated as has been done in this case and therefore, petitioner automatically goes out of service. ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the appointment letter issued to the petitioner by the Management of the institution, it was not mentioned that her appointment was subject to the decision of the writ petition preferred by Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava or that she was being appointed in the vacancy caused by the removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava from service and similarly it was also not mentioned in the advertisement that the vacancy was created on account of removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava from service and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner is independent and not contingent upon the quashing of the order of removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava. It is no doubt true that the Management while issuing the appointment letter of the petitioner and while issuing the advertisement did not mention that the vacancy was caused on account of removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava or that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the result of the petition preferred by the later but the Vice-chancellor in his letter of approval dated 1. 3. 1979 in so many words categorically mentioned that the post against which the petitioners appointment was being approved fell , vacant on account of removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava from service. In any case, it could not be disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the post earlier held by Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava and because she was entitled to get back the post, the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated. ( 6 ) IT was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was not obtained while terminating the service of the petitioner after Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava was permitted to join on her writ petition being allowed by this Court. Section 35 (2) of the Uttar pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 provides that where a teacher is sought to be dismissed or removed or to be reduced in rank or to be punished. the approval or Vice-Chancellor shall be obtained before such an order is communicated. Sub-section (3) of this Section further lays down that the provision of sub-section (2) shall also apply to any decision to terminate the service of a teacher whether by way of punishment or otherwise but shall not apply to any termination of service on the expiry of the period for which the teacher was appointed. These two sub-sections run as follows : " (2) Every decision of the Management of such college to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him. be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the vice-Chancellor". (3) The provisions of sub-settion (2) shall also apply to any decision to terminate the services of a teacher, whether by way of punishment or otherwise but shall not apply to any termination of service on the expiry of the period for which the teacher was appointed. (3) The provisions of sub-settion (2) shall also apply to any decision to terminate the services of a teacher, whether by way of punishment or otherwise but shall not apply to any termination of service on the expiry of the period for which the teacher was appointed. " ( 7 ) SO far as sub-section (2) of Section 35 is concerned, it does not apply to the petitioners case because services of the petitioner have not been terminated by way of punishment. In fact, during arguments emphasis was laid on the use of the word "otherwise" in subsection (3) of Section 35 on behalf of the petitioner and it was contended that every termination in whatsoever manner made requires prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. We do not find any substance in this contention because sub-section (3) lays down that the provision of sub-section (2) shall not apply to any termination of service on the expiry of the period for which teacher was appointed. Since, the appointment of the petitioner was contingent on the validity of removal of Smt. Sawarn Lata srivastava from service, it shall be deemed that the appointment of the petitioner was for the period during which Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava remained out of service. In view of this, the approval of Vice-Chancellor terminating the service of the petitioner in terms of sub-section (3)of Section 35 of the U. P. State Universities Act was not required. ( 8 ) IT was last contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle of last come, first go should be applied and Smt. Geeta Singh, opposite party No. 9, who was appointed subsequently should go out of service to make room for the petitioner. We find no substance in this contention because Smt. Geeta Singh was appointed altogether on a different post which had been created subsequently sometime in the year 1989 and she holds the post independently of the controversy which has arisen now between the petitioner and Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava. Apart from this, a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana, High Court in the case of Y. K. Bhatia v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1977 Pandh 153, has held that the rule of last come, first go is recognised in Industrial Law and is not strictly applicable to a public servant. Apart from this, a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana, High Court in the case of Y. K. Bhatia v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1977 Pandh 153, has held that the rule of last come, first go is recognised in Industrial Law and is not strictly applicable to a public servant. It has been held that" it is perhaps desirable to apply it to public servants too. Indeed, very often it is so applied. But it is one thing to say that it is desirable to apply the rule of last come, first go in given situations and that it is often so applied, it is quite a different thing to say that the failure to apply the rule leads to the necessary inference of denial of equal opportunity under Article 16 (1 ). To say so would be to elevate the rule to a rule of universal application, which it is not. " We find that the principle of last come, first go does not apply in this case on merits because Smt. Geeta singh holds her post independently and she has nothing to do with the post in question which is held by Smt. Sawarn Lata Srivastava. ( 9 ) WE find that the petitioner has been continuing in service since 1979. i. e. for the last about two decades, she is now aged about 44 years and is not eligible to get any other post by way of direct recruitment as she has become over age. It would be too harsh to throw her out of employment. We summoned Sri Shiv Shanker, Director, Higher Education and Sri P. C. Verma, Chief standing Counsel fully co-operated in it. The Director, Higher Education informed us that of one post each a Lecturer in Education is lying vacant in Saket College, Faizabad and Munish Dutt college, Pratapgarh. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be appointed as Lecturer to teach Education in Saket College, Faizabad, by the Management of the said institution. The director, Higher Education as well as Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh university. Falzabad, shall issue necessary direction if required, to the Management of the said college. The appointment letter shall be issued to the petitioner within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Management of the said Institution. The director, Higher Education as well as Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh university. Falzabad, shall issue necessary direction if required, to the Management of the said college. The appointment letter shall be issued to the petitioner within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Management of the said Institution. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be appointed on the same pay and in the sanie grade in saket College, Faizabad, in which she was working in Raja Mohan Girls Post Graduate College, faizabad, and her services rendered in Raja Mohan Girls Post Graduate College, Faizabad, shall be counted for all purposes including retiral benefits. The period during which the petitioner had remained out of employment shall not be treated as break in service but shall be treated as leave without pay. Any leave standing to the credit of the petitioner in Raja Mohan Girls Post graduate College shall be carried over to Saket College, Faizabad. ( 10 ) PETITION is disposed of finally in the terms indicated above. .