Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141365 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30074 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Sumita Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secy Sec. Education And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- M.M. Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K. Srivastava Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the recommendations of the fourth-respondent dated 20.05.2009. The fourth-respondent is the State Backward Classes Commission has issued certain recommendations vide impugned order dated 20.05.2009 whereby the Commission had declared the appointment of the petitioner as illegal and with a recommendation to consider the case of the fifth- respondent. 2. Aggrieved by the said action the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. While considering the matter this Court has passed the following order on 17.06.2009:- "It appears that after being formally and regularly appointed the petitioner is working as Lecturer in Arya Mahila Intermediate College, Varanasi (in short "the College"). She was absorbed on a general category post. It appears that on the complaint of one Sri Ram Bharose Yadav the State Backward Class Commission, U.P., Lucknow has passed an order on 18th May 2007 declaring the appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Sumita Rai as illegal and has rather ordered for cancellation of the absorption of the petitioner from the aforesaid post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Backward Class Commission, as a recommendatory body, do not have the power of any Court of law/ Civil, Court/ Tribunal or other statutory forum. Moreover, if the petitioner is ousted from the services, Sri Ram Bharose Yadav cannot be appointed on the aforesaid post. Smt. Kiran Singh has approached this Court through Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, Advocate seeking intervention in the matter. On being asked, as to if the petitioner is ousted from service whether she can be appointed on the aforesaid post of the petitioner, his answer was in negative. He has, further, drawn his attention to the G.O. dated 31st March 2009 regarding appointment of the petitioner. In this case, he is neither the contesting party nor he has any right to jump into the matter and interfere in the proceedings at the admission stage. The Court declines to entertain the request made on behalf of Smt. Kiran Singh, who has no concern with the aforesaid appointment. He is least affected with the judgements and orders passed by this Court in the matter. The Court inclines to impose heavy cost on the ground of wastage of precious time of the Court during summer vacations when every court is under pressure to entertain more than 100 cases per day in a short period of five hours only. However, considering the submissions of Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate, this Court is not passing any such order. Learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Till disposal of this case, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the aforesaid post in the College and shall be paid salary for the aforesaid period. List in the last week of August, 2009." 3. By virtue of the above directions the petitioner has been continuing on the said post. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further brought to the notice to the Court that the fifth-respondent is not entitle to consider on the post in which petitioner was absorbed. In reply to the said contentions the learned counsel for the fifth-respondent has submitted that the Board has to consider for appointment under OBC category, hence the Management-District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction for absorption of the petitioner. 5. As this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and only to decide the jurisdiction and power of the fourth-respondent Commission under Section 9 and 10 of The Uttar Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In fact the same controversy arose before this Court in (Professor Banarsi Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others) reported in 2011 (1) ADJ 112 (DB). The Court held that the service conditions of the Government servants, employees of any Corporations, Government Societies/ Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies or Universities are governed by statutory rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and Government Orders. The State- Commission is not empowered and authorized to direct any action to be taken against any employee, on the pretext of oppression/ victimization, or protection of rights of persons of Backward Classes. 6. Following the division bench judgment the co-ordinate bench has also taken the same stand in State of U.P. Through its Principal Secretary, Education Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others Vs. State Backward Commission U.P. and 5 Others (Service Single No.5933 of 2005), and held that the Commission is well beyond its jurisdiction and authority vested under the provisions of the Act and accordingly, set aside the recommendations made by the Commission therein. WRIA No. 30074 of 2009 2 7. From perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench it is categorically observes that in service matters the Commission has no role either to give directions or recommendations. Accordingly, the impugned recommendation dated 20.05.2009 is contrary and is set aside as per the provisions of the Act, more particularly Section 9 and 10 of the Act. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) WRIA No. 30074 of 2009 3 Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad