JUDGMENT : J.N. Dubey, J. This Writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-12-1976 of the Deputy Director of Education (R), V Region, Varanasi dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner against the order dated 15-10-1968 of the Committee of Management of Raza D.M. Inter College, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the College) removing him from the post of clerk. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as cleric in the College on 1-9-1961 and was confirmed on that post on 30-8-1962. He was placed under suspension on 14-3-1968 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. He was served with a charge sheet on 29-6-1968 and was removed from service by the Committee of Management on 15-10-1968 with the finding that all the charges levelled against him were proved. The Petitioner filed appeal to the Deputy Director of Education (R) V Region, Varanasi which was dismissed on 8-12-1976. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Committee of Management was not legally justified in removing the Petitioner from service without obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel urged that no prior approval of District Inspector of Schools was required for the removal of a clerk from the Intermediate College. Having considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for parties we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In Dhata Intermediate College Dhata v. Brahma Nath Singh 1976 ALJ 499 a Division Bench of this Court held that no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was required for removal of the services of a clerk in an Intermediate College. 5. In Dhata Intermediate College Dhata v. Brahma Nath Singh 1976 ALJ 499 a Division Bench of this Court held that no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was required for removal of the services of a clerk in an Intermediate College. The Bench observed: Though Section 16-G(3) of the Act provides that no Principal, Head Master or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of services, except with the prior approval in writing of the District Inspector of Schools, there is no such provision in respect of clerks or Head Clerks, Chapter III of the Regulations which deal with the condition of service also does not provide for the approval of the Inspector of Schools before the termination of the service of a clerk or Head Clerk. The only provision on which the Respondent No. 1 relied was Rule 143(1) of the U.P. Education Code, the relevant portion of which reads thus: 143(1) No Head Master/Principal/Teacher/Clerk, with whom the agreement in the prescribed form has not been executed, may be dismissed, removed, suspended or discharged from service, without the prior approval of Inspector/Inspectress. ... ... ... Rule 103(1) of the Education Code remains an executive instruction and cannot be given the status of a statutory rule. Since this rule is not statutory, even if the College is a statutory body, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal against the Respondent No. 1 has been passed by a statutory body in violation of statutory rules. The case of Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, not covered by third category of cases referred to by the Supreme Court. That being so, the order of dismissal passed by the Appellant College against the Respondent No. 1 cannot be quashed by this Court. 6. In Magan Ram Yadava Vs. Dy. Director of Education and Others, (1979) AWC 726, a Full Bench of this Court while approving the decision in Dhata Intermediate College v. Brahmanand Singh (supra) observed: We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Dhata Intermediate College v. Brahma Nand Singh. 6. In Magan Ram Yadava Vs. Dy. Director of Education and Others, (1979) AWC 726, a Full Bench of this Court while approving the decision in Dhata Intermediate College v. Brahmanand Singh (supra) observed: We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Dhata Intermediate College v. Brahma Nand Singh. Before the Bench which decided Manager, Shanta Nand Swatantra Bharat Inter-College v. Kamla Rai it was not urged that paragraph 143(i) of the Education Code, U.P. had any statutory force and hence could not create a right of appeal. With due deference to the learned Judges who decided Manager, Shanta Nand Swatantra Bharat Inter College v. Kamla Rai we record our dissent therefrom, if it was intended to lay down therein that by virtue of paragraph 143(i) of the Education Code U.P. the Committee of Management of a College recognised under the Act was powerless to pass an order terminating the services of a member of the clerical staff without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools and that an order of the District Inspector of Schools according or withholding approval to such proposed action was appealable to the Deputy Director of Education. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner next contended that paragragh 143 of the U.P. Education Code was drastically amended by the State Government vide G.O. No. AI (6820/XV-1696-65 dated June 4, 1965) making the provisions of 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder applicable to the clerks and other employees of an Intermediate College. The Division Bench in Dhata Intermediate College, Dhata v. Brahma Nand Singh (supra) and Full Bench in Magan Rum Yadava v. Dy. Director of Education (supra) decided the matter without taking into consideration this change and as such those decisions require reconsideration. According to him, the basis of those decisions was that as before 1958 the provisions of the Act were not concerned with the teachers and other employees of the recognized Institutions the Regulations made by the Board could not and did not relate to the terms and conditions of teachers and other employees like clerks and head clerks which could not be said regarding the provisions introduced in paragraph 143(i) of the U.P. Education Code by the Government Order in 1966. In other words, the amendment introduced in paragraph 143(i) of the U.P. Education Code introduced after 1958 stood on different footing than the original provision and, therefore, it became necessary for the Committee of Management to obtain prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools for removal or dismissal of teachers and other employees of an educational Institution after the amendment. In order to appreciate this argument of the learned Counsel the amended paragragh 143(1) of the U.P. Education Code is quoted below: Punishment and appeal of Headmasters/Principals/Teachers/Clerks including Librarians shall be regulated in accordance with the provision of Section 16-G and regulations made thereunder. Comparing the original and substituted provisions of paragraph 14(i) of the U.P. Education Code we find that this contention of the learned Counsel is also without substance. The original provision provided that no Headmaster/Principal/Teacher/Clerk, with whom the agreement in prescribed form has not been executed may be dismissed, removed, suspended or discharged from service without the prior approval of Inspector/Inspectress while the amended provision provides that punishment and appeal of Headmaster/Principal/Teachers/Clerks including Librarians shall be regulated in accordance with the provision of Section 16-G and Regulations made thereunder. Under the original provisions of paragraph 143(i) prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was necessary for dismissal of an employee from service but under the amended provision of Paragraph 143(i) punishment and appeals etc. of the employees of the Educational Institutions are to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 16-G and the Regulations made thereunder. Thus, the aforesaid G.O. of 1966 instead of making any new provision regarding service conditions of the employees of an Educational Institution provided that the same will be governed by the provisions of 16-G and the Regulations made thereunder. The result is that the original provisions of paragraph 143(1) which provided for prior approval of District Inspector of Schools has ceased to exist after the amendment and now the service conditions of employees of educational Institutions are to be governed by the provisions of Section 16-G and the Regulations framed thereunder. The result is that the original provisions of paragraph 143(1) which provided for prior approval of District Inspector of Schools has ceased to exist after the amendment and now the service conditions of employees of educational Institutions are to be governed by the provisions of Section 16-G and the Regulations framed thereunder. The position has, therefore, nowhere improved by the amendment of paragraph 143(i) of the U.P. Education Code in 1966 rather it has worsen inasmuch as now we have to confine ourselves to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder to find out as to whether the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary for dismissal of a clerk from service. Since there is no such provision under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder no prior approval of District Inspector of Schools is necessary for removal or dismissal from service of a clerk as laid down by this Court in Dhata Intermediate College, Dhata v. Brahma Nand Singh (supra). 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs.