K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE Committee of Menagement of Shri Baldeo Degree College, Baragaon, Varanasi has approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, setting aside the order of the Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University dated July 11, 1978. Sri Baldeo Degree College, Varanasi is affiliated to Gorakhpur Univer sity and is being administered by a Committee of Management. Sri Raghu-nath Prasad Srivastava respondent No. 3 was the Principal of the College, he completed sixty years of age on June 30, 1973. THE Committee of Manage ment of the College granted two years' extension to the Principal with the sanction of the Vice-Chancellor as a result of which the Principal was to be superannuated on June 30, 1975. During the extended period of service of the Principal, some untoward incident took place in the college as a result of which the respondent No. 3 could not attend his duties in the college. THE management served charge-sheet on the Principal alleging that he had failed to discharge his duties properly and he had absented himself from the college. THE Principal made an application for grant of 80 days' Privilege leave which was not granted but subsequently the management granted only 40 days" leave. It appears that there was a serious difference between the Principal' and the Committee of management as charges and counter charges were level led by them against each other. Ultimately the Committee of Management adopted a resolution on June 30,1975 to terminate the services of respon dent No. 3 with immediate effect. It forwarded the papers to the Vice-Chancellor for obtaining his approval. THE Vice Chancellor granted approval to the Management's proposal which was communicated to the Management by the Registrar under his letter dated September 20, 1975. Respondent No. 3-made representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. THE Chancellor by his order dated 11-7-1978 set aside the approval granted by the Vice-Chancellor and declared that the respondent No. 3 shall be deemed to have continued in service as Principal of the College till June 30,1976. Aggrieved, the Committee of Management of the College has challenged the order of the Chancellor. THE Chancellor held that conditions of service of teachers of the colleges-affiliated to the Gorakhpur University are regulated by the Statutes contained in Chapter XIV of the Statutes and the terms of the Agreement entered into between the Committee of Management of the College and the respondent No. 3. Under the said statutes the age of superannuation of a teacher is sixty years. THE Management of the College has power to grant extension for a period not exceeding two years. THEre is no dispute that the respondent No. 3 had completed sixty years of age on June 30, 1973 but before that date the Committee of Management had granted two years' extension to him. THE question then arises on what date the respondent No. 3 would retire from service. THE proviso to Statutes 24 (2) (b) lays down that the date of retire ment in case of a teacher whose services are extended shall be the 30th June following the age of sixty two years. According to this provision a teacher who has been granted extension shall retire on the expiry of the extended period of two years following 30th June. It means that if the extended period expires in August or September the teacher concerned is entitled to continue in service till the next 30th June. THE intention behind the Statutes is that teacher should continue to teach students for the whole of the session which generally comes to an end on 30th June of each year and for that purpose the proviso permits continuance of teacher in service till the end of the session. In the instant case respondent No. 3 was born on July 1, 1913, he completed sixty two years of age on June 30, 1975, therefore, under the proviso-to the Statutes 24 (2) (b) he was entitled to continue in service till June 30, 1976 as that would be the relevant date following his attainment of age of sixty two years. THE management on the other hand took the view that respondent No. 3 would retire from service on attaining the age of sixty two years on June 30, 1975. In out opinion, the Committee of Management committed patent error in treating the respondent No. 3 to have retired on June 30, 1975. Statute 25 (2) is clear, which does not admit of any other interpretation. That provision clearly lays down that a teacher is entitled to continue in service till 30th of June following the attainment of the age of sixty two years. We find no apparent error in the order of the Chancellor warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the Chancellor failed to appreciate that the Vice- Chancellor had granted approval to the manage ment's proposal to terminate the services of the respondent No. 3 on the charge of insubordination and absence from duty and he had not granted approval for the retirement of respondent No. 3 on his attaining the age of sixty-two years. In this connection learned counsel referred to the letter of the Registrar addressed to the Committee of Management, communicating the order of approval of the Vice-Chancellor which is Annexure-11 to the petition. On a perusal of that letter we find that the Vice-Chancellor stated that he was in agreement with the decision of the Committee of Management which was founded on the findings of the Principal's continued absence from 'his duties. In our opinion, the Vice-Chancellor misread the resolution of the Committee of Management in coming to that conclusion. THE resolution of the Committee of Management (Annexure 10) to the petition clearly shows that the management did not take any action to terminate the services of the respondent No. 3 on the charges framed against him although the resolution narrates the events leading to the issue of charge-sheet to the respondent No. 3. THE resolution clearly stated that since the extended period of service of the respondent No. 3 has come to an end on 30th June, 1975, therefore his. services shall be deemed to have come to an end with effect from June 30, 1974. THE resolution of the Committee of Management clearly indicates that the respondent No. 3 was superannuated under Statute 24 (2) of the Statutes. THE resolution doss not at all indicate that the services of the respondent No. 3 were being terminated on account of charges framed against him. THE Vice-Chancellor committed patent error in granting approval' to the management's proposal to superannuate the respondent No. 3 with effect from June 30, 1975. THE Chancellor in our opinion, had ample jurisdiction under Section 68 of the U. P. Universities Act to interfere with the order of the Vice-Chancellor. In the result, the petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.;