SC/ST Commission lacks jurisdiction to issue binding directions in individual seniority and promotion disputes.

The Petitioner sought a review of the judgment dated 12.01.2026, which had dismissed his writ petitions challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 06.05.2010

The CAT had quashed a 2004 MCD order that regularized the Petitioner's service as Assistant Labour Welfare Officer effective from 01.01.1990.

This regularization had been originally granted by the MCD solely to comply with directions from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST Commission)

On 12.01.2026, the Petitioner’s counsel failed to argue the merits, assuming the matter was infructuous as all parties had retired

The Petitioner now argues that his regularization was previously settled via a 2000 order and that the Court overlooked material documents

Whether there exists any patent error or legal infirmity in the judgment dated 12.01.2026 warranting a review

Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes has the jurisdiction to issue binding directions regarding seniority and regularization in service matters

The Court reaffirmed the jurisdictional limit of the SC/ST Commission, holding it lacks the authority to issue mandatory directions in seniority disputes

The Court applied the standard for review under the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the demonstration of a "patent error on the face of the record" for interference with a final order

The court maintained the principle that fresh orders must be passed independently and uninfluenced by non-jurisdictional bodies when a statutory authority's discretion has been fettered

The Court noted that during the original hearing, the Petitioner’s counsel refused to make submissions on merits despite being invited to point out errors in the Tribunal's order

Consequently, the Court was not obliged to sift through all documents at that stage

Upon re-examination, the Court found the CAT's 2010 decision legally sound because the SC/ST Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by directing specific regularization dates in a seniority matter

The Petitioner’s reliance on an Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2002 was deemed a matter for the MCD to consider during the fresh evaluation ordered by the Tribunal, especially since the Petitioner’s actual regularization date (01.10.1992) conflicted with the date directed by the Commission (01.01.1990)

The Court held that the issue is largely academic as the Petitioner and private respondents have already superannuated

The MCD is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass an independent order regarding the Petitioner's regularization/seniority, taking into account relevant Office Memorandums but remaining uninfluenced by the SC/ST Commission’s previous directions