JUDGMENT In these three writ petitions, common question of fact and law is involved, as such, are being taken up and decided together. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 30th of June 1998, post of Principal fell vacant in a Government aided College, known as Dayanand Kanya Intermediate College, Subhash Nagar, District Dehradun (hereinafter referred as the College) against which the then senior most teacher Smt. Arshdeep Kaur took over on 01.07.1998, as officiating/Ad hoc Principal. Her services were regularized vide order dated 21.01.2008, by District Education Officer, Dehradun, w.e.f. 22.04.2006. Consequently, a post of Lecturer fell vacant for promotion in the College to be filed by promotion from amongst the senior most eligible teachers of L.T. Grade. Smt. Suman Lata Bisht [petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1270 (S/S) 2008 and Writ Petition No. 970 (S/S) of 2008] was the Senior most teacher, and next to her was Smt. Sushma Rani (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 914 (S/S) of 2008). The case of Smt. Sushma Rani is that on 22.04.2006, she was the only eligible teacher in L.T. Grade for promotion, as Smt. Suman Lata Bisht, senior to her, did not possess postgraduate degree required for the promotion. It appears that before the exercise of promotion could be taken up in the year 2008 by the Committee of Management of said College, Smt. Suman Lata Bisht had already got the requisite postgraduate degree. She made a representation that being senior most teacher with five years experience in L.T. Grade, with postgraduate degree she be promoted on the post of Lecturer. On the other hand, Smt. Sushma Rani claimed her promotion on the basis of her qualification as on 22.04.2006. The representation of Smt. Sushma Rani was rejected by the District Education Officer, vide his order dated 27.08.2008. On this, Smt. Sushma Rani filed a complaint before the Chairman, Other Backward Classes Commission, Uttarakhand, that she was being harassed for being a member of the other backward class. Meanwhile, Smt. Suman Lata Bisht filed Writ Petition No. 970 (S/S) of 2008, and obtained an order dated 29.09.2008 from this Court, directing the District Education Officer, Dehradun, to take a decision on the resolution sent by the Committee of Management of said College for promotion in her favour. Meanwhile, Smt. Suman Lata Bisht filed Writ Petition No. 970 (S/S) of 2008, and obtained an order dated 29.09.2008 from this Court, directing the District Education Officer, Dehradun, to take a decision on the resolution sent by the Committee of Management of said College for promotion in her favour. The District Education Officer, Dehradun, on this, vide his letter dated 13.10.2008 granted approval on the resolution of Committee of Management of said College, and Smt. Suman Lata Bisht stood promoted to the post of Lecturer in the College. Smt. Sushma Rani also filed Writ Petition No. 914 (S/S) of 2008 before this Court, challenging the promotion of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht. It appears that the Other Backward Classes Commission, Uttarakhand, called the Director of Education and the Principal of said College before it and heard the matter on the complaint of Smt. Sushma Rani, and passed impugned order dated 19.11.2008, holding that promotion of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht is against the law and directed that Smt. Sushma Rani be promoted w.e.f. 22.04.2006. Said order is challenged by Smt. Suman Lata Bisht in Writ Petition No. 1270 (S/S) of 2008. 4. The stand taken by the State Government and the District Education Officer, Dehradun, is that Smt. Suman Lata Bisht was senior in L.T. Grade to Smt. Sushma Rani, not only in experience but also in age. Her name figures above in the seniority list as against Smt. Sushma Rani, but on 22.04.2006, Sushma Rani was not only having experience of five years but also had a postgraduate degree. By the time Smt. Arshdeep Kaur was regularized on the post of Principal of said College in 2008, Smt. Suman Lata Bisht had also obtained postgraduate degree and she had experience in L.T. Grade more than that of Smt. Sushma Rani. By the time Smt. Arshdeep Kaur was regularized on the post of Principal of said College in 2008, Smt. Suman Lata Bisht had also obtained postgraduate degree and she had experience in L.T. Grade more than that of Smt. Sushma Rani. As such, on the resolution of the Committee of Management of the College, Smt. Suman Lata Bisht was given promotion on the post of Lecturer, but after the Other Backward Classes Commission, Uttarakhand, directed vide its order dated 19.11.2008, to reverse the order of promotion of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht, the approval of the order of promotion in favour of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht was cancelled, and Smt. Sushma Rani was promoted to the post of Lecturer, during the pendency of the writ petitions, which is also under challenge (after amendment) in the Writ Petition No. 1270 (S/S) of 2008, filed by Smt. Suman Lata Bisht. 5. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention here the relevant provision of law applicable to this case. Regulation 6(1) of Chapter II, framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under: “6(1). Where any vacancy in the lecturer’s grade or in the L.T. grade as determined under Regulation 5, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L.T. or the C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer’s grade or in the L.T. grade is required.” 6. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht argued that the Other Backward Classes Commission has no power to pass the impugned order dated 19.11.2008. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 9 of the Uttaranchal State Commission for Other Backward Classes Act, 2003, which reads as under : “9(1). Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht argued that the Other Backward Classes Commission has no power to pass the impugned order dated 19.11.2008. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 9 of the Uttaranchal State Commission for Other Backward Classes Act, 2003, which reads as under : “9(1). The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely :- (a) The Commission shall examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as an other backward class on the Schedule and hear complaints of wrong inclusion on non-inclusion of any other backward class in the Schedule and tender such advice to the State Government as it deems appropriate; (b) To investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Other Backward Classes under any law for the time being in force or under any order of the State Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards; (c) To enquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of right and safeguard of the Other Backward Classes; (d) To participate and advice on the planning process of socio-economic development of the other backward classes and to evaluate the progress of their development; (e) To present to the State Government annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards; (f) To make in such reports recommendations, as to the measures that should be taken by the State Government for the effective implementation of those safeguards and other measures for the protections, welfare and socio-economic development of other backward classes; and (g) To discharge such other function in relation to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the other backward classes as may be referred to it by the State Government.” Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Sushma Rani submitted that Clause (c) of Section 9, quoted above, empowered the Commission to enquire into the complaints relating to deprivation of rights of the other backward classes. On going through the entire provision, this Court finds that the Commission after enquiry should have made a recommendation or report to the State Government after giving its opinion. The Act nowhere empowers the Commission to pass an order like a Court or appellate authority to set aside an order passed by a competent authority. On going through the entire provision, this Court finds that the Commission after enquiry should have made a recommendation or report to the State Government after giving its opinion. The Act nowhere empowers the Commission to pass an order like a Court or appellate authority to set aside an order passed by a competent authority. As such, this Court is in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht that the Other Backward Classes Commission has passed the impugned order beyond its jurisdiction. 7. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Sushma Rani drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Kant Singh Vs. Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others (2009) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 196, and argued that it is the date of vacancy on which the qualification is required to be fulfilled and not the date when the recruitment process started. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht relied and referred to the case of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Smt. Sushma Ghai and another; 2009 (1) U.D. 140, in which Division Bench of this Court has taken a contrary view to the view taken by the Allahabad High Court, and it is held that if the candidate fulfills qualification in the recruitment year, he shall not be denied his consideration for promotion merely for the reason that on the date of vacancy he had not fulfilled the condition. In said case, this Court had taken note of the fact that if no person is eligible for promotion on the date of vacancy, it does not mean that in future when the eligible candidates have fulfilled the conditions, their cases are not to be considered before the post is filled. View taken by Division Bench of this Court is binding on this Bench (Single Judge Bench). Apart from this, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court itself in the case of Hans Raj Singh Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others; (1990) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1127, had expressed the view that where the qualification of masters degree is obtained even after the vacancy has accrued but before the taking up of exercise of promotion, the candidature of such candidate cannot be rejected. 8. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others; (1990) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1127, had expressed the view that where the qualification of masters degree is obtained even after the vacancy has accrued but before the taking up of exercise of promotion, the candidature of such candidate cannot be rejected. 8. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the orders dated 19.1.2008 passed by the Other Backward Classes Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, as well as the consequential order dated 18.12.2008, passed by the District Education Officer, Dehradun, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No. 1270 (S/S) of 2008 filed by Smt. Suman Lata Bisht is allowed. Both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 19.11.2008, passed by the Other Backward Classes Commission, Uttarakhand, and order dated 18.12.2008, passed by the District Education Officer, Dehradun, are quashed. The promotion of Smt. Suman Lata Bisht is restored. The Writ Petition No. 914 (S/S) of 2008 filed by Smt. Sushma Rani is dismissed. The writ petitions No. 970 (S/S) of 2008, accordingly, stands disposed of. (All pending applications in these three writ petitions also stand disposed of).