JUDGMENT By the Court.—Cause shown in support of the delay condonation application is sufficient. Delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application allowed. 2. Office to allot regular number to the appeal. 3. This Special Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.8.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 29948 of 1999, Ashok Kumar Sharma v. District Inspector of Schools, Agra and others. 4. The appellant was appointed and allowed to join the post of Chaukidar, a Class IV employee in the institution Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Inter College, Agra. On the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, his representation was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools (in short DIOS) holding that the appellants appointment was in violation of Regulation 101 to 107 of the Regulations framed in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The order of the DIOS was challenged before the learned Single Judge by means of a writ petition which has been dismissed on one of the grounds that the appointment of the petitioner was made without the prior approval of the DIOS which is mandatory under Regulation 101 of the Regulations. 5. We have heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajesh Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that as the Principal of the College had intimated the DIOS about the vacancy on which no action was taken, it should be treated that there was prior approval to the appointment. He has further placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision in the case of Jagdish Singh etc. v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(4) ADJ 162 (All) (DB), and has contended that prior approval means approval before issuance of the appointment letter to the selected candidate and not before initiation of the selection process. 7. Regulation 101 of the Regulations contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under : "The appointment authority shall not fill any vacancy in the non-teaching staff of a recognised aided institution except with the prior approval of the Inspector." 8. 7. Regulation 101 of the Regulations contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under : "The appointment authority shall not fill any vacancy in the non-teaching staff of a recognised aided institution except with the prior approval of the Inspector." 8. We have considered the above submission and perused the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in the light of the aforesaid regulation and find that the learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with the above aspect and has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Amit Kumar v. DIOS and others, 2004(4) ESC 2578, which clearly holds that use of the word `shall and `except in Regulation 101 means that the vacancy of a non-teaching staff of a recognised aided institution can `only be filled with the prior approval of the DIOS and the said expressions are imperative, regulatory and mandatory in nature and the requirement of approval cannot be treated as an empty formality. 9. The Division Bench in Jagdish Singhs case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant also lays down that prior approval of the DIOS is mandatory before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidates. 10. The learned Single Judge further notes that from the records it is evident that the Principal of the Institution had not taken prior approval of the DIOS before giving the appointment to the petitioner as Chaukidar. In fact the communication dated 21st August, 1998 sent by the Principal of the College to the DIOS indicates that the institution had appointed appellant and had even permitted him to join the institution before sending the papers for consideration and approval of the DIOS. Thus, there was no approval of the DIOS either before the initiation of the process of selection or even before issuing appointment letter to the appellant. 11. In view of the aforesaid and the clear finding that the Principal had not taken prior approval of the DIOS either before the start of the selection process or on its completion or even before issuing the appointment letter, the appointment of the appellant on the face of it de-hors the statutory regulations and as such cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the aforesaid and the clear finding that the Principal had not taken prior approval of the DIOS either before the start of the selection process or on its completion or even before issuing the appointment letter, the appointment of the appellant on the face of it de-hors the statutory regulations and as such cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appellants representation was rightly rejected and there is no error or any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is lacks of merit and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ————