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 of July of that year.

d. Whether the view taken by the Full bench would result in giving a leverage to the management to decide as to what would be the year of recruitment under Rule 14 of Rules 1998 or determine the 1st day of the year for eligibility requirements for promotion at its whims and fancies and thereby defeat the right of eligible L.T. Grade teachers for promotion on their turn.

e. Whether determination of the quota under which a particular vacancy in Lecturer’s grade would fall has necessarily to be so done with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy in the institution or the management has a right to club all the vacancies of the recruitment year and decide which is to be filled by direct recruitment and which by promotion.”

The Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 28th July, 2017 constituted this Special Bench for considering the questions so referred.

2. We have accordingly assembled. We have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 6-writ petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Advocate on behalf of appellant-respondent, Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Sri C.B. Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents.

3. The facts relevant for answering the questions, which have been referred, lie in very narrow compass and are as under:

Mewa Lal Ayodhya Prasad Gupta Smarak Inter College, Soraon, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “institution”) is an aided and recognized institution governed under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1921’). The provisions of the Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder as also those of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1982) and the rules and regulations framed thereunder are applicable to the teachers of the institution.

4. A post of Lecturer(Hindi) fell vacant in the said institution in the year 2000. The petitioner, Amar Singh was appointed in the said institution on the recommendation of the Selection Board as L.T. grade teacher on 30.11.2004. He moved an application seeking promotion against the said vacancy of lecturer (Hindi) in the year 2012. This application remained pending.

5. In the meantime, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raeesul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(6) ADJ 778, held that the eligibility for the post of lecturer as required to be determined under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1998”), must be with refe