Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be appointed by the Principal (respondent-4) onýÿ Class-IV post (peon) in the Institution covered under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that due to promotion, a vacancy in the said post occurred in November, 1999 and for filling up the said vacancy, permission was sought by the District Inspector of Schools (respondent-1), which was granted on 8.3.2000. Thereafter, advertisement etc. were made and, thereafter, the petitioner was selected and papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his prior approval on 14.4.2000. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the District Inspector of Schools did not respond at all to the aforesaid selection and kept mum in spite of the fact that several reminders were sent to the Distrtict Inspector of Schools. Ultimately, the Principal of the College issued a letter of appointment to the petitioner on 4.11.2000. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the work of the Institution was being adversely hampered and since the District Inspector of Schools did not respond to the selection, therefore, the Principal i.e. respondent no.4 had no other choice but to grant appointment to the petitioner. 5. In the counter affidavit, stand has been taken that the appointment of the petitioner was made on non-sanctioned post and, therefore, there was no question of granting any prior approval to the said appointment. 6. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1999 (2) LBESR 428 , Rajendra Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur & others. 7. The said decision apparently relates upon the Dying-in-Harness provisions and, therefore, in my opinion, the said decision is not applicable. 8. The Regulation 101 of Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 2001 prescribes the mode of appointment and specifically bars the authority to make any appointment without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. In the present case, no prior approval was given and, therefore, under these circumstances, since there is a clear embargo under Regulation 101, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. *********