Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"12. Article 338 of Constitution of India specifies for constitution of National Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST employees' welfare association v. Union of India (Supra) held that "all the procedural powers of civil court given to the National Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint, under 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading, of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter"."

12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention to Article 338(5)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India which reads as under -

"338. National Commission for Scheduled Castes.-- ...

(5) It shall be duty of the Commission--

(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under this Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards;

17. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted that the impugned orders have been passed within the ambit and scope of powers conferred upon the respondent no.2 under Article 338 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the said provision empowers respondent no.2 to inquire and investigate into the specific complaints with respect to deprivation of the rights of the Schedule Castes. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the petitioner before this Court are impermissible in law.

10. This Court in case of Sadhana B. Bendbhar (supra) considered the facts where the respondent no. 1 had recommended to appoint the respondent no. 5 on a post though she was not senior-most and was not selected in the employment. This Court after adverting to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P. Jogi, (2011) 10 SCC 357 : AIR 2012 SC 44 and construing Article 338 (5) (b) of the Constitution of India, quashed and set aside the decision taken by the respondent no. 1 Commission and holding that the said decision was totally without jurisdiction. The principles laid down by this Court in the said judgment apply to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in the matter. Similar view is taken by the Delhi High Court in case of State Bank of India v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes (supra) after adverting to the various provisions of law including Article 338(6) of the Constitution of India quashing and set aside the order/recommendation made by the respondent no. 1 Commission by which the respondent no. 1 had sought to interfere with the decision of the employer. The principles laid down by the Delhi High Court would apply to the facts of this case. We respectfully agree with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court.