National Commission for Scheduled Castes Lacks Adjudicatory Power to Issue Mandatory Orders in Service Matters

Respondent No. 3, an SC employee of the Appellant, was promoted to Stenographer Grade-I in 1997. Following a Bombay High Court judgment quashing the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 21.01.2002 regarding consequential seniority, the Appellant reset seniorities.

Respondent No. 3 was subsequently demoted from Grade I to Grade II effective notionally from 2007 to 2016 after a show-cause process.

She approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), which issued an order on 23.10.2024 directing the Appellant to adhere to reservation rosters, grant promotions, and pay arrears within 30 days.

The Appellant challenged this order before the High Court, which dismissed the petition, holding that the NCSC acted within its powers.

1. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) possesses the power to pass mandatory/enforceable orders in respect of service matters such as promotions and payment of arrears.

2. Whether the powers vested in the NCSC under Article 338 of the Constitution are adjudicatory or recommendatory in nature.

Article 338(5) mandates the Commission to investigate safeguards and inquire into complaints regarding the deprivation of rights.

Article 338(8) grants the Commission the "powers of a civil court" for limited procedural purposes like summoning witnesses and discovery of documents.

In All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1996), it was established that "powers of a civil court" for investigation do not confer the power to grant injunctions.

In Collector v. Ajit Jogi (2011), it was clarified that NCSC's powers do not include adjudicating individual status or rights but are limited to reporting and recommendation.

Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) emphasized that such commissions are not adjudicatory tribunals.

The Court analyzed the text of Article 338, noting that the use of the word "namely" in clause (8) indicates an exhaustive and limited list of procedural powers akin to a civil court, which are intended solely to facilitate investigation rather than adjudication.

The Court rejected the NCSC’s submission that the word "safeguards" in Article 338(5)(b) acts as an enforcement limb; instead, it held that "rights and safeguards" must be read together as a bundle.

The Court reasoned that since the NCSC's duty is to present reports to the President under Clause (d) and (e) regarding the implementation of safeguards, its role is inherently monitorial and advisory.

Consequently, the NCSC lacks the jurisdiction to issue binding directions to pay arrears or grant promotions, as it is not a court or an adjudicatory tribunal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and declared the NCSC's direction to pay arrears as "non-est in law".