Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Commission Has No Adjudicatory Jurisdiction: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: The Executive Director-Cum Appointing Authority Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Petitioner) vs. The Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Commission & (Respondent 1) and Smt. Jyothi Mallappa Savanalli, Principal, Morarji Desai Residential School, Arakeri (Respondent 2).

Date of Order: October, 19 2022

Background: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Indian Constitution, praying to quash order (dated 15.03.2016) passed by The Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Commission.

Highlights: A single Judge Bench of Karnataka High Court held that Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Commission has no adjudicatory jurisdiction.

Arguments:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that second respondent approached the first respondent – Commission in Case No.352/2015 with prayer to regularize her services in the petitioner – Institution as Principal. The Counsel submitted that the first respondent- Commission jurisdiction or authority to decide the service dispute between the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

It is further submitted that Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 defines the functions of the Commission, and that is recommendatory in nature. In other words, the Commission is not conferred with the power to adjudicate dispute between the parties.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted, contrary to the above arguments, that Section 8 of the Act and Rule 10[5] of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rules, 2012 empowers the Commission to enquire, make appropriate recommendations to the State Government.

The Hon’ble High Court made it clear that “Commission could not have entertained the complaint of the second respondent with a prayer for regularization of her service. Under Section 8 of the Act, the Commission could enquire on the issues enumerated therein and could appropriately recommend corrective measures to the appropriate Authority.”

The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and the impugned order dated 15.03.2016 passed by first respondent is quashed.