JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The special appeal arises from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8 September 2014. 2. The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29 October 1999 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur. The appellant also sought a mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in his functioning as a Lecturer in Economics in an Inter College. 3. The facts insofar as is material are that the appellant was appointed as a teacher in L.T. grade on 6 February 1990. He was promoted on an ad hoc basis on 5 July 1996 as a Lecturer. The relevant provision at the material time was contained in rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983, which provided as follows: "9. Procedure for appointment by promotion. ? (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L.T. or C.T. grade, who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in at least 5 years continuous service as teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion to the Lecturer or L.T. grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same." 4. It was not in dispute before the learned Single Judge as also before this Court in appeal that the vacancy arose on 30 June 1991. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1983 clearly stipulated that where a vacancy was to be filled in by promotion, the teachers in the L.T. or C.T. grade possessing minimum qualifications and who had put in at least five years' continuous service on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion. Admittedly, on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy, the appellant had not fulfilled the norms of five years continuous service. Subsequently, in 1998, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules came to be framed. Before this Court, it has been stated on behalf of the appellant that those rules would apply only with effect from 1998 when they were framed and would not have retrospective effect and hence, the special appeal has been considered on the basis as conceded during the hearing. 5. Before this Court, it has been stated on behalf of the appellant that those rules would apply only with effect from 1998 when they were framed and would not have retrospective effect and hence, the special appeal has been considered on the basis as conceded during the hearing. 5. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was correct in coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 29 October 1999 could not be faulted since on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy, the appellant had not completed five years continuous service. Hence, there is no merit in the special appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.