Which of the following dynasties of India is NOT a post-Gupta dynasty?

Concept: "Post-Gupta dynasties" are the regional ruling houses of North and West India that rose to power after the political authority of the Gupta Empire (c. 320–550 CE) had broken down, in the roughly 6th-century-CE power vacuum it left behind. A dynasty qualifies as post-Gupta only if its rise follows the Gupta decline; a dynasty that had already risen and fallen before the Gupta Empire was even founded cannot be called post-Gupta — it is pre-Gupta instead.

Application: Checking each dynasty's rise against the Gupta timeline (Gupta Empire founded c. 320 CE, declined by the mid-6th century CE) settles the question directly.

• Maukharis — rose to power in the Kannauj–Doab region during the 6th century CE, after Gupta central authority had weakened, so this is a post-Gupta dynasty.

• Maitrakas — established at Vallabhi in Saurashtra around 470–490 CE by Senapati Bhatarka, a Gupta provincial governor who broke away as Gupta control loosened; also a post-Gupta successor state.

• Pushyabhutis (Vardhana dynasty) — founded around 500–550 CE at Thanesar and reached its peak under Harshavardhana (606–647 CE), again after the Gupta collapse — a classic post-Gupta North Indian dynasty.

• Mauryan dynasty — founded by Chandragupta Maurya around 322 BCE and ended around 185 BCE, roughly five centuries before the Gupta Empire itself was founded. It rose and fell entirely before the Gupta era, so it is a pre-Gupta dynasty, not a post-Gupta one.

Cross-check: Placing the four dynasties on a timeline — Mauryan (322–185 BCE) → Gupta Empire (c. 320–550 CE) → Maukharis / Maitrakas / Pushyabhutis (6th century CE onward) — confirms that only the Mauryan dynasty falls before the Gupta era rather than after it.