JUDGMENT By the Court.—For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing special appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. 2. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College, Harpur Budhat, Gorakhpur through its Manager is before this Court assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 14.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 7051 of 2017 (Bal Mukund Singh v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to set-aside the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur on the premises that District Inspector of Schools has no authority to take decision in the matter and the view expressed by the District Inspector of Schools has been contrary to the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raeesul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(6) ADJ 778 . 3. Brief background of the case, as is emanating from the record, is that in the district of Gorakhpur there is a dully recognized institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and affairs of the said institution are to be run and managed strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as well as Rules framed thereunder. In the institution concerned a post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) had fallen vacant on 30.6.2011 and petitioner opposite party Bal Mukund Singh, who earlier has been appointed as Subject Expert in the L.T. Grade for teaching English and has been adjusted on regular L.T. Grade post in the said college and joined on 14.8.2007 and, thereafter, he proceeded to stake claim for being accorded promotion and as nothing was being done Writ Petition No. 36355 of 2016 has been filed before this Court and on 5.8.2016 this Court directed for consideration of claim of petitioner opposite party. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools started undertaking the exercise and found that Bal Mukund Singh was not at all eligible for promotion as he has not completed five years of regular continuous service on 5.7.2011 that is the first day of the recruitment. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools started undertaking the exercise and found that Bal Mukund Singh was not at all eligible for promotion as he has not completed five years of regular continuous service on 5.7.2011 that is the first day of the recruitment. The report in question that has been so submitted by the District Inspector of Schools has been assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2017 and the said writ petition was allowed on 14.2.2017 and matter was remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools for ensuring compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 5.8.2016. The decision of the District Inspector of Schools was once again to the similar effect that petitioner opposite party did not fulfill the requisite minimum qualifications. Against the said judgment and order present special appeal has been filed before this Court. 4. Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the appellant respondent, has contended with vehemence that in the present case the writ petition has wrongly been allowed as petitioner opposite party was not at all fulfilling the requisite minimum qualifications for being promoted on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) and, as such, special appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner opposite party, on the other hand, has contended that rightful orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge and, as such, no interference be made by this Court. 6. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation on which there is no dispute that petitioner opposite party has been claiming promotion on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) at Sri Gandhi Inter College, Harpur Budhat, Gorakhpur, a recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, wherein selection by way of appointment and by way of promotion was to be made strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. The post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) has fallen vacant on 30.6.2011 and petitioner opposite party was absorbed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 14.8.2007. The post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) has fallen vacant on 30.6.2011 and petitioner opposite party was absorbed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 14.8.2007. Accepted position is that on 1.7.2011 petitioner opposite party was not having to his credit five years regular continuous service and since he did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer, in view of this, the District Inspector of Schools has formed opinion that once he is ineligible his claim could not have been adverted to. 7. The claim of petitioner opposite party has been accepted by the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) wherein view has been taken that five years of regular continuous service is to be counted with reference to the first day of the recruitment year during which the matter is taken up for promotion. At this juncture, we proceed to make a mention that doubting the validity of the view taken in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) the matter has been referred to Larger Bench for consideration and Larger Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 442 of 2016 (Smt. Sadhna v. State of U.P. and others) on 30.5.2017 has disapproved the ratio, that has been approved in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra). 8. Once such is the factual situation that the view taken by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) has not found favour by the Larger Bench (Majority View) in Special Appeal Defective No. 442 of 2016 (Smt. Sadhna v. State of U.P. and others), the order dated 14.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be approved of by us and, accordingly, the order dated 14.2.2017 is hereby quashed and set-aside and fact of the matter is that in consonance with the provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 read with U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998, it has to be accepted that on the first day of year of recruitment petitioner opposite party was not at all having to his credit five years regular continuous service. 9. Special appeal stands allowed.