M. KATJU, J. This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judg ment of the learned single Judge dated 10- 9-99. We have carefully perused the said judgment and find no infirmity in the same. 2. The respondent No. 3 in this ap peal was a Daftari (peon) in the Rastriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, district Maharajganj and he was dismissed by the Principal by order dated 8-7-99, but the said order was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 23/28-3-99. Against that order of the District Inspector of Schools the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed,by the impugned judgment of the learned single udge. 3. The short question of this case is whether prior approval/permission from the District Inspector of Schools is neces sary before dismissing a Class IV employee. 4. A learned Court (Honble Aloft Daya Shanker Tiwari others, 1998 (2) L that such prior approve learned single matter in great d the relevant provide mediate Education 31 and 100 of under the aforesaid 1 Act for of Education 1351, which is relishing Judge of this Chakrabarti, J.) in v. Principal and PLBEC 1101, has held is necessary. The has gone into the tail and has examined scions in the U. P. Inter-Act as well as Regular-the Regulations made 5. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge in Daya Shanker Tewaris case. The decision of the full Bench of this Court in Meacham Yadav -and others, 1979 ALJ ed upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is in our opinion not applicable as it has not considered Regulations 31 arid 100 of the U. P. Inter mediate Education Regulation. Appeal dismissed. .