National Commission For Scheduled Castes Can’t Entertain Complaints Unrelated To Reservation: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]
The Commission is not a parallel forum for adjudicating any dispute between two litigants, the Court observed.
The Delhi High Court in State Bank Of India vs. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and others, has held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot entertain a complaint against disciplinary action taken by an employer against an employee belong to the Scheduled Caste, in the absence of any allegations against the former for violation of orders related to reservation policy.
Justice V. Kameswar Rao, allowing the writ petition preferred by the State Bank of India, set aside the recommendation/order/advice issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, directing the bank to reconsider and re-examine the whole issue of penalty imposed upon its employee (complainant before it) by the disciplinary authority.
The court observed: “No doubt, the aforesaid is a recommendation/observation of the commission to the respondents. Being a recommendation/observation, it is not a mandatory direction. But the question would be whether, the complaint, which resulted in the observation / recommendation could have been entertained at the first instance, in the absence of any allegations for violation of orders related to reservation policy. The answer must be "No". This I say so, on a perusal of the representations/complaints given by the respondent No.3. There is not even a single averment that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent No.2 is in violation of any of the instructions issued with regard to the reserved category candidates/instructions/OMs issued by the Government of India/the bank. It is only, when such allegations are made, does the commission get the jurisdiction to initiate the process as contemplated under Article 338 of the Constitution of India.”
The court further observed: “The first and foremost issue needs to be considered by the commission whether the complaint is, in terms of Article 338, for which the commission is constituted is at all entertainable. If not, the same should be rejected at the threshold. Even otherwise, the representations/complaints could not have been entertained as the commission is not a parallel forum for adjudicating any dispute between two litigants.”
Read the Judgment here.