As per Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J. [On behalf of V.K. Shukla, J., Sunita Agarwal, J. and M.C. Tripathi, J.) (Majority View).—A Division Bench of this Court finding it difficult to agree with the Full Bench judgment in the case of Raeesul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(6) ADJ 778 referred the following questions for being examined by a Larger Bench vide order dated 15th July, 2016:

“a. Whether the Full Bench in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) has laid down the correct law.

b. Whether there can be two different years of recruitment with reference to the posts, which are within the direct recruitment quota and for the posts within the promotion quota under Rules 10,11 and 14 of the Rules, 1998.

c. Whether Rule 10 of the Rules 1998 read with the proviso attached to it necessarily entails the determination of the number of vacancies to be filled by way of promotion in that year of recruitment which would end on 30th of June of the succeeding year by adding all the existing and likely vacancies due for retirement so as to make the proviso workable which requires that the vacancies, which may not be filled by promotion be intimated to the Board for direct recruitment by 31