JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a lecturer in the Department of Psychology in Hrangbana College by an order dated 20th March, 2003. Subsequently, by an order dated 10th April, 2003 her appointment was cancelled with immediate effect. No reasons were given for the cancellation. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 81 of 2003 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 18th April, 2005. It was held that cancellation of the Petitioner's appointment was in violation of the principles of natural justice and without assigning any reason. However, it was left open to the Respondents to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause. The Respondents were also at liberty to take into consideration the provisions of the Mizoram Aided College (Employee) Rules, 1990 and also to take into consideration whether the Petitioner had passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited test as required by the advertisement issued for the purpose of appointment of lecturers in the said college. 2. It may be mentioned here that in the meanwhile with effect from 1st April, 2003 Hrangbana College was provincialized. 3. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single the question of absorption of the Petitioner into the provicialized college was taken up for consideration through the Mizoram Public Service Commission (M.P.S.C. for short). 4. On 29th March, 2006, the M.P.S.C. recommended the absorption/regularization of the Petitioner into Government service subject to fulfilment of the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of lecturer i.e. NET or equivalent. 5. Acting on the recommendation of the M.P.S.C. a notification was issued on 20th April, 2006 by the Respondents to the effect that the Petitioner was absorbed/regularized into Government service subject to fulfilment of the requisite norms of appointment to the post of lecturer as per UGC norms i.e. with a qualification of NET/SLET or a similar accredited test within a period of 2 years from the date of issue of the notification failing which the absorption/regularization would stand cancelled. 6. It appears that the Petitioner did not qualify in the NET/SLET or a similar accredited test for quite sometime. 6. It appears that the Petitioner did not qualify in the NET/SLET or a similar accredited test for quite sometime. Consequently, a notification dated 19th May, 2009 was issued to the Petitioner informing her that despite the passing of 3 years she had not acquired the requisite qualification for regularization/absorption into Government service. It was made clear in the notification that if the Petitioner does not pass the NET (which she had already taken at that point of time and the result of which was awaited) her service would automatically be terminated. 7. Since the Petitioner did not pass the NET, on 11th May, 2010, she was given an opportunity to explain her position. Making a reference to the earlier notification dated 19.5.2009, the Petitioner was given an opportunity to give an explanation as to why her service should not be terminated from the date of the receipt of the letter. 8. The Petitioner submitted her explanation on 10th June, 2010 but it appears that the Respondents were not satisfied with the explanation and, therefore, on 9th July, 2010 an order was issued terminating the services of the Petitioner under Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 9. Feeling aggrieved, Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the termination of the service. 10. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that his client was absorbed in Government service and therefore, her services could not be terminated by resorting to Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. 11. It is quite clear that the absorption of the Petitioner was on a provisional basis or on a conditional basis. The M.P.S.C. had made a recommendation for the absorption/regularization of the Petitioner into Government service subject to the condition that she passed the NET or equivalent examination. Even the notification absorbing the Petitioner into Government service was issued on a provisional basis subject to her passing the NET or an equivalent test within a period of 2 years. 12. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not qualify the NET examination within the stipulated period. She was then given a further time of 1 (one) year to pass the NET or an equivalent test but even then she could not clear the test. 12. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not qualify the NET examination within the stipulated period. She was then given a further time of 1 (one) year to pass the NET or an equivalent test but even then she could not clear the test. Under the circumstances, since the absorption or the regularization of the service of the Petitioner was conditional on her passing the NET or an equivalent test, there was no option with the Respondents except to terminate her services in terms of the recommendation made by the MPSC as well as the notification dated 20th April, 2006. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that no time was fixed for the Petitioner to clear the NET or equivalent test. I am afraid this is not correct because in the notification dated 20th April, 2006 it was clearly mentioned that the Petitioner was given 2 years time to clear the NET or obtain an equivalent qualification failing which her service would stand terminated. It is clear, therefore, that a specific time schedule was given to the Petitioner to clear the NET or an equivalent test. Over and above this period of 2 years, the Petitioner was given 1 more year to pass the examination but unfortunately she could not do so. 14. It is no doubt true that the recommendation made by the M.P.S.C. did not stipulated a time schedule for passing the NET or an equivalent test, but it is for the authorities to take a decision in this regards and they did then give the Petitioner two years time (extended by one more year) but she could not pass the NET. 15. That apart, it is now too late in the day for the Petitioner to contend that no time limit was specified for her to clear the NET or equivalent test. If the Petitioner had any reservation, she should have made a grievance in the year 2006 itself, rather than raising this issue for the first time in a writ petition filed in 2010. Moreover, it is now very well settled law that where time is not specified, it should be understood to mean a reasonable period of time. 16. If the Petitioner had any reservation, she should have made a grievance in the year 2006 itself, rather than raising this issue for the first time in a writ petition filed in 2010. Moreover, it is now very well settled law that where time is not specified, it should be understood to mean a reasonable period of time. 16. In so far as the present case is concerned, the Respondent had given the Petitioner more than 2 years time and, therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no time limit was specified for her to clear the NET or equivalent test cannot be accepted. 17. It is finally contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that his client has been working as a lecturer since 2003 and that she should be given another 1 year to clear the NET or an equivalent test. It entirely for the Respondents to take a decision on this. 18. There is no merit in the writ petition. 19. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.