The Aryavarth Express
Aryavarth (Bengaluru): The pivotal case centered around a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, an employee, before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). This employee had previously approached the High Court in W.P.No.12079/2022, challenging the rejection of his request for appointment to a higher post despite possessing a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering and a Master’s in Technology. The High Court had unequivocally dismissed the petition, directing the aggrieved employee to seek redressal from the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, as stipulated by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Defying the court’s directive, respondent No.2 opted to file a complaint with the NCSC instead of pursuing the designated legal recourse. Surprisingly, the NCSC entertained the complaint, issuing directives instructing the Chief Engineer to apprise the Principal Secretary of the Karnataka Public Works Department (KPWD) and implement the Commission’s recommendations within 15 days. Failure to comply would result in the NCSC re-examining the matter under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, potentially leading to further action.
The state promptly challenged the NCSC’s overreach by filing the captioned petition, seeking to quash the complaint, subsequent proceedings, and directives issued by the Commission. The court’s ruling resoundingly affirmed the state’s stance, emphasizing the well-established principles governing the jurisdiction and authority of constitutional bodies.
Drawing from a catena of judgments by the Supreme Court and a coordinate bench, the court underscored that the NCSC’s role is explicitly delineated to matters pertaining to the protection, welfare, and socio-economic development of Scheduled Castes, as envisaged under Article 338 of the Constitution. Within this purview, the Commission is mandated to investigate, monitor, and advise on safeguards provided for Scheduled Castes, not adjudicate upon service matters or entertain complaints related to seniority and promotion.
The court highlighted that service-related grievances, by their very nature, fall within the realm of administrative law and are subject to adjudication by specialized bodies such as administrative tribunals, endowed with the requisite competence in resolving such disputes. Allowing the NCSC to issue directives on service matters would constitute a transgression of its statutory mandate and a violation of the fundamental principles of constitutionalism and separation of powers.
Reinforcing the significance of adhering to jurisdictional boundaries, the judgment underscored that the NCSC’s role, while pivotal in safeguarding the rights and interests of Scheduled Castes, is circumscribed by the overarching principles of the rule of law. As such, the Commission is entrusted with ensuring the effective implementation of safeguards and measures aimed at promoting the socio-economic advancement of Scheduled Castes, rather than adjudicating upon individual disputes of a service-related nature.
The court’s decision serves as a resounding affirmation of the necessity for constitutional bodies to operate within the confines of their statutory mandates, refraining from encroaching upon domains reserved for specialized adjudicatory bodies. By quashing the NCSC’s proceedings and directives, the judgment upholds the delicate balance of powers and reinforces the orderly and efficient adjudication of disputes across various domains.
