Kashi Nath Pandey, J.:- We have heard learned Standing Counsel for State of UP-the appellant. 2. In the delay condonation application the substantial part of delay is explained to have been spent in obtaining sanction for filing the Special Appeal. No one appears for the petitioner-respondent in the revised call. The delay is accordingly condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. The registry will give regular number to the Special Appeal. 3. We have heard learned Standing Counsel on merits. 4. The petitioner-respondent was appointed as a Class-IV employee in Janta Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Mahnajpur, District Azamgarh, which is an Intermediate College recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 11.3.2002. He had traced the entire history of claim of the petitioner and had given approval to his appointment. 5. On the complaints of one Shri Yogendra Singh and his associates, the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 27.3.2002 i.e. 16 days after the grant of approval passed an order staying his own order dated 11.3.2002. After an enquiry the petitioner's salary was stopped by the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 17.11.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools found that the vacancy ought to have been filled up by a person belonging to reserved category, and that the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter-III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The Inspector also found that the petitioner's claim was with regard to appointment on Class-III post and thus he could not have been appointed on a Class-IV post. 6. Learned Single Judge found that out of 07 sanctioned posts, 05 persons working in the institutioins belonged to reserved categories and further that after the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval there could be no question of violation of Regulations 101 to 107. 7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was not appointed after advertisement of vacancy. He belonged to general category and that Regulations 101 to 107 required the intimation of vacancy, and prior approval before the appointment was made. Regulation 106 also provides for filling up the vacant posts firstly by the persons waiting for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. 7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was not appointed after advertisement of vacancy. He belonged to general category and that Regulations 101 to 107 required the intimation of vacancy, and prior approval before the appointment was made. Regulation 106 also provides for filling up the vacant posts firstly by the persons waiting for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. We have gone through the documents annexed to the writ petition and do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge. In the grounds of appeal or in the affidavit supporting the stay application the State appellant has not given the details of the 05 appointees on 07 posts, and their reserved categories. The State also has not denied that the appointment was made after notifying the vacancy and seeking prior approval of the Inspector. In fact the Inspector had initially approved the appointment, on satisfying himself that the petitioner's appointment was made in accordance with the regulations. There was no one waiting for appointment on compassionate ground to get priority over the petitioner. The Special Appeal is dismissed.