M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 13. 1. 1998 Annexures-25 and 26 to the petition. By the order dated 13. 1. 1998 Annexure-25 to the petition the post of deputy Director (Public Relations) in the North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad was abolished. By the second order of the same date (Annexure-26 to the petition) the petitioner was given contractual appointment for two years from 1. 12. 1993 terminable at any point of time without any prior notice. It was also provided therein that on the expiry of the contract period, it will be in the sole discretion of the Executive Board of the North Central Zone Cultural Centre, allahabad, to determine whether the contract should be renewed or not. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE North Central Zone Cultural Centre. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Centre)was set up with a view to promote and preserve the cultural heritable of India. It is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act. Its governing body consists of several persons mentioned fn paragraph 2 of the pelition. The finance of the centre is provided by the Central government and participating State Government. The Director is an I. A. S. Officer. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner was a confirmed/regular employee working as Administrative officer in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the nigam) a Government of U. P. undertaking and he was sent on deputation by the Nigam to the centre. True copy of the letter appointing him on deputation is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner took charge on 2. 12. 1991 vide Anncxure-3. It is alleged in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that while working In the Centre the petitioner retained his lien in the Nigam. In paragraph 18 it is alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director (Public Relations)by the order dated 19. 1,1993 In the Centre vide Annexure-4. He was given pay scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500. It is alleged in paragraph 21 that on the assurance given by the respondent No. 1 that he would be absorbed in the Centre he resigned from the Nigam. True copy of the petitioners application dated 13. 7. 1993 is Annexure-5 to the petition. 1,1993 In the Centre vide Annexure-4. He was given pay scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500. It is alleged in paragraph 21 that on the assurance given by the respondent No. 1 that he would be absorbed in the Centre he resigned from the Nigam. True copy of the petitioners application dated 13. 7. 1993 is Annexure-5 to the petition. True copy of the resignation letter is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The resignation was accepted by the Nigam w. e. f. 1. 12. 1993 vide Annexure-8. In paragraph 28 it is alleged that the Executive Board of the centre by the resolution dated 4. 3. 1994 resolved that the post of Deputy Director (Public relations and Publications) be re-designated as Deputy Director [public Relations) and the petitioner be appointed on the pay scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500 for three years from 1. 12. 1992. It was resolved by the Executive Board that the petitioner be treated as an officer on contract employment. By the order dated 3. 6. 1996 the petitioner was allowed to continue to work in continuation of his previous service till such time as the next meeting of the Executive board/governing Body. The petitioner made a representation for absorption. True copy of the representation dated 24. 1. 1997 is Annexure-10 to the petition. By the order dated 26. 4. 1997 vide annexure-11 to the petition the petitioners contractual appointment was extended till 30. 4. 1997. It was mentioned therein that if the petitioner failed to extend his contract tilt 30. 4. 1997 the letter dated 24. 1. 1997 will be considered as notice of termination of employment as per contract. The petitioner submitted a representation on 29. 4. 1997 against this order vide Annexure-12. In reply the office memo dated 3. 5. 1997 was sent to him vide Annexure-13. The petitioner signed the contract referred to in the office memo as stated in paragraph 50 of the writ petition. He then moved an application dated 10. 10. 1997 for reconsidering the decision vide Annexure-14. In paragraph 54 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner was not paid salary for the months of november and December, 1997. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 43718 of 1997 before this Court which was disposed of by the order dated 13. 1. 10. 1997 for reconsidering the decision vide Annexure-14. In paragraph 54 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner was not paid salary for the months of november and December, 1997. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 43718 of 1997 before this Court which was disposed of by the order dated 13. 1. 1998 vide Annexure-24 to the writ petition in which the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner. It is alleged in paragraph 73 that consequent to this order the Director got annoyed and abolished the contract vide Annexure-25. Hence this petition. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is stated in paragraph 32 of the counter-affidavit that the post on which the petitioner was working has been abolished and no direction could be given in favour of the petitioner. This was a policy decision in the interest of the society. In paragraph 29 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Executive Board of the Society decided on 15. 12. 1997 that the Centre does not need the post of Deputy Director (Public Relations) and there is no need to renew the contract of the petitioner. Hence the contract was not renewed and his service was terminated. In paragraph 37 of the counter-affidavit it is denied that the Society is an instrumentality and agency of the Central Government. ( 6 ) IN paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner had fraudulently tendered his resignation from his parent department, namely, U. P. Panchayat Raj Vitta Evam vikas Nigam Limited. Lucknow. In paragraph 18 it is stated that the administrative expenditure of the Society exceeded 20% of the total outlay of the Society and hence the Governing Body of the Society in its meeting on 15. 12. 1997 decided that efforts should be made by the Society to bring its administrative expenditure to 20% of its total budget. Hence it was decided that the services of those on contractual basis may not be renewed after expiry of the contract. It was also decided to abolish the post of Deputy Director (Public Relations ). In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that there was connivance between the petitioner and the Officiating director Sri Prayag Ram Mishra. Hence it was decided that the services of those on contractual basis may not be renewed after expiry of the contract. It was also decided to abolish the post of Deputy Director (Public Relations ). In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that there was connivance between the petitioner and the Officiating director Sri Prayag Ram Mishra. It is alleged that the petitioner and Sri Mishra were in the knowledge of the decision of the Executive Board/governing Body and hence the petitioner and sri Mishra cannot claim ignorance about such resolution. True copy of the resolution dated 9. 10. 1992 is Annexure-C. A. 4 to the counter-affidavit. It is alleged in paragraph 20 to the counter-affidavit that it was amazing that just after the minutes of the said meeting of the executive Board held in Lucknow on 25. 6. 1993 the officiating Director Sri Mishra moved a note dated 13. 7. 1993 for regularisatlon of the service of the petitioner. Moreover, the Executive board of the Society did not recognize the authority of the officiating Director for the purposes of service matters and he had no Jurisdiction to regularise the service of the petitioner. There was indecent haste in the matter and the decision of Sri Mishra to regularise the service of the petitioner was illegal and for extraneous consideration. The Executive Board did not want to add any more to the staff of the Society since the Society was spending more than 20% of its income on payment of pay and allowances. In paragraph 66 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that there was no promise or assurance given by any competent authority of the Society for absorption--regularisation of the petitioner in the service of the Society. The petitioner resigned from his parent department voluntarily on his own and no competent authority of the Society asked him to do so. The petitioner and the then Joint Director Sri P. R. Mishra connived in sending a fraudulent letter to the parent department of the petitioner. In paragraph 74 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the Society never gave any assurance as alleged in the application of the petitioner dated 13. 7. 1993. ( 7 ) THE detailed facts have been given in the counter-affidavit and in the other affidavits but it is not necessary to go into the same. In paragraph 74 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the Society never gave any assurance as alleged in the application of the petitioner dated 13. 7. 1993. ( 7 ) THE detailed facts have been given in the counter-affidavit and in the other affidavits but it is not necessary to go into the same. ( 8 ) THE question whether to abolish a post is a policy matter and it is for the Management of the society to decide this and this Court cannot interfere In the decision of abolition of a post. Moreover the allegation of the petitioner that he was given assurance for absorption in the society has been strongly refuted in the counter-affidavit. These are disputed questions of fact and we cannot go into it in writ jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IT is obvious that the Centre wanted to reduce its administrative expenses and this approach cannot be faulted by the Court. Obviously there has been overstafflng in the Centre and there is nothing wrong in remedying this situation. ( 10 ) IN Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan and others. AIR 1999 SC 923 . the Supreme Court held that where a decision to abolish the post is taken which is bona fide based on administrative and financial consideration the employer cannot be directed to continue a displaced person in service. The Supreme Court considered several of its own earlier decisions and held that the Court cannot interfere in such matters. ( 11 ) IN the present case, it cannot be said that the decision of the respondent to abolish the post was mala fide. Rather, the factual position appears to be that the matter of appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Director was placed on 25. 6. 1993 before the Executive Board and the Board decided that the matter should await decision till the permanent/regular Director of the Centre was appointed. No doubt Sri J. P. Rai. I. A. S. was appointed as regular Director of the Centre by the letter dated 7. 7. 1993 but that letter states that the appointment will take effect from the date of his Joining and Sri Rat joined as regular Director of the Centre on 21. 7. 1993. It appears that In between le. , before the Joining of Srt Ral on 21. 7. 1993 the petitioner gave an application on 13. 7. 7. 1993 but that letter states that the appointment will take effect from the date of his Joining and Sri Rat joined as regular Director of the Centre on 21. 7. 1993. It appears that In between le. , before the Joining of Srt Ral on 21. 7. 1993 the petitioner gave an application on 13. 7. 1993 to the officiating Director Srt P. R. Misra that if he is absorbed in the service of the centre, he shall resign from his parent department. On the same date the petitioner submitted his resignation letter dated 13. 7. 1993 to be forwarded to his parent department and on the same date. i. e. . on 13. 7. 1993 Sri P. R. Mlsra wrote to the parent department of the petitioner (Panchayat Raj nigam) forwarding the resignation letter of the petitioner. All these acts were done in a hurry and in one single day although the officiating Director had no authority or power to give approval or assurance for absorption to the petitioner or to forward his resignation letter to the parent department. In our opinion. Sri P. R Misra should have awaited for the regular Director sri Rai to Join but he acted in great haste and against the resolution of the Executive Board dated 25. 6. 1993 wherein it was stated that the matter should await the appointment of the permanent director. On 4. 3. 1994 the Executive Board of the Centre In its meeting at Jalsalmer passed a resolution that if the petitioner wants to continue in the Centre his employment from 1. 12. 1993 shall be purely on contractual basis on the condition that the petitioner should execute a deed of contract. The first contract of service was executed on 21. 4. 1994 whereby the petitioner was appointed on purely contract basis for a period of two years from 1. 12. 1993 and terminable at any time without notice and after the expiry of the contract period it was the sole discretion of the Executive Board to renew the contract or not. On the request of the Director of the Centre the u. P. Governor gave permission for extension of the contract for a period of six months, i. e. . up to 31. 5. On the request of the Director of the Centre the u. P. Governor gave permission for extension of the contract for a period of six months, i. e. . up to 31. 5. 1996 and hence a second contract of employment was executed on the same terms as in the first contract vide Annexure-C. A. 12 to the counter-affidavit. Since no meeting of the executive Board was held hence with the approval of the Governor of U. P. (who is Chairman of the Centre) the contract between the petitioner and the Centre was extended till 31. 5. 1996 on the same terms as the previous two contracts. Another contract was signed on 26. 4. 1997 extending the period to 30. 4. 1997 vide Annexure-C. A. 13 to the counter-affidavit and again another contract was signed on 3. 5. 1997 extending the petitioners contract till the next meeting of the executive Board or specific order issued in this regard whichever was earlier vide annexure-C. A. 14 to the counter-affidavit. Ultimately on 15. 12. 1997 the Governing Body of the centre resolved to abolish the post of Deputy Director (Public Relation) besides downgrading various other posts. This decision was apparently taken with a view to bring the administrative expenditure of the Society to 20% of its total budget. Consequent to the aforesaid resolutions, the executive Board passed another resolution stating that the Centre does not require the post of deputy Director (Public Relations ). In pursuance of the aforesaid two resolutions, the Director of the Centre issued two orders dated 13. 1. 1998 abolishing the post and terminating the contractual appointment of the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN N. C. Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1255 , the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 18) : "creation and abolition of posts is a matter of Government policy, and every sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration. The creation or abolition of a post Is dictated by policy decision, exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity See M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala. AIR 1973 SC 2641 . " ( 13 ) IN K. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107 . it was held that abolition of a post did not involve punishment, and hence Article 311 (2) was not attracted. In Mathuresh chand v. U. P. Public Service Tribunal. AIR 1973 SC 2641 . " ( 13 ) IN K. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107 . it was held that abolition of a post did not involve punishment, and hence Article 311 (2) was not attracted. In Mathuresh chand v. U. P. Public Service Tribunal. 1999 (81) FLR 322, a Division Bench of this Court held that abolition of a post Is a valid ground for termination of service of even a permanent employee. ( 14 ) SINCE the decision of the Centre to abolish the post appears to have been passed on administrative and financial grounds, this Court cannot interfere with the same. There is a financial crisis in the country and the Court should not interfere in the authorities endeavour to bring down their expenses. Hence this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 15 ) WE are not going into the question whether the Centre is an instrumentality of the State under article 12 of the Constitution or not as we are dismissing the petition on the ground mentioned above. However, we recommend to the petitioners parent department (the Nigam] to re-employ the petitioner considering the fact that his post In the Centre has been abolished. For the reasons mentioned above the writ petition is dismissed. No order.