By the Court—Heard Counsel for the appellant, Sri N.N. Pathak appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 14672 of 2003 filed by the appellant challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are; respondent No.4 was working as Class-IV employee in Sri Krishna Intermediate College Semara, Kathkuia, District Kushinagar. The services of respondent No.4 were terminated by the Principal on 20th August, 1997. After the termination of services of respondent No.4, the appellant claims to be appointed as Class-IV employee. The respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2002 stating that he is a Class-IV employee but he is not being permitted to function in the institution. This Court vide order dated 8th February, 2002 disposed of the writ petition directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the representation of respondent No.4. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 3rd March, 2003 directing that respondent No.4 be reinstated and be paid salary from the date of reinstatement. The District Inspector of Schools in the said order held that termination of services of respondent No.4 vide order dated 20th August, 1997 is not valid. Two grounds were given by District Inspector of Schools for coming to the said conclusion, firstly it was stated that before passing the termination order the principles of natural justice were not satisfied and secondly that termination of respondent No.4 was made without obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as required under Chapter-III Regulation-31 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Against the order of the District Inspector of Schools the writ petition was filed by the appellant, who claims to be subsequent appointee, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2006.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, challenging the order impugned, contended that the District Inspector of Schools committed error in taking the view that prior approval was required before termination of a Class-IV employee. He further contended that the reason for coming to the conclusion by the District Inspector of Schools that principles of natural justice have been violated was that the letters were sent not from the nearest post office but from the post office situate at Basdiha.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents had sent information of his illness and also the medical certificate after July, 1995 for the entire period to the Principal. It is further submitted that no charge-sheet was received by respondent No. 4 and the order of termination was invalid.

6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has upheld the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003. The learned Single Judge took the view that respondent No.4 was not validly removed, hence the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner was not in accordance with law. We have also perused the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003 by which respondent No. 4 was directed to be reinstated. One of the grounds taken in the order that prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not taken, hence the termination is invalid is erroneous. Regulation 31 of Chapter-III, which is relevant for the purpose, is extracted below :

“[31. Punishment to employees for which prior sanction from Inspector or Regional Inspectress would be essential may be any one of the following:

(1) Discharge,

(2) Removal or Termination,

(3) Demotion in grade,

(4) Reduction in emoluments.

Principal or Headmaster would be competent to give above punishment to Fourth class employees. In case of punis