Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes on a complaint alleging caste-based discrimination, holding that the matter fell outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Court found that the underlying dispute stemmed from a service-related issue between an employee and a private educational institution. Declaring that the complaint constituted a misuse of statutory provisions, the Court stated that “a palpable service dispute is projected as an atrocity dispute” and directed the termination of the proceedings before the Commission.

The petition was filed by the Mysore Education Society (MES), represented by its Secretary and Chief Executive, challenging the proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) based on a complaint by an employee. The relief sought was to quash the notice dated 19.01.2024 and related proceedings in File No.06/APCR/47/2023-RU before the NCSC.

Also Read: Public Jobs Remain Elusive Even After 80 Years of Independence: Employment Must Be Based on Merit And Merit Alone, Upholds invalidation of Bihar’s Hereditary Chaukidar Rule: Supreme Court

The petitioner is a registered educational society operating several institutions, including the MES Degree College in Malleswaram, Bengaluru. The first respondent, employed as a Computer Technician since 18.02.2008, entered into a formal agreement with MES on 01.06.2017, agreeing to be bound by its Cadre and Recruitment Rules and Code of Conduct. Among the terms was a clause permitting inter-institutional transfers within MES institutions.

On 19.07.2022, the first respondent applied for two years of leave from 01.08.2022 to 31.07.2024 citing personal reasons, including his mother's health, his wife’s responsibilities as an elected Panchayat president, and his intention to pursue a Ph.D. The leave was granted without pay. In the interim, MES appointed a replacement technician named Santhosh.

On 06.11.2023, the first respondent expressed his intention to resume duties ahead of the original leave period and was subsequently transferred to MES Institute of Management, Rajajinagar, another unit of the same Society located approximately four kilometres away. The first respondent accepted the transfer and reported to the new institution on 21.11.2023 without raising objections.

Subsequently, on 19.01.2024, the petitioners received a notice from the NCSC enclosing a complaint from the first respondent alleging caste-based harassment by the Chief Executive of MES. The complaint included serious allegations of caste discrimination and verbal abuse, including claims that the petitioner had made derogatory remarks and issued humiliating instructions that targeted the respondent’s caste identity.

Following the complaint, the Commission instructed the Commissioner of Police to investigate the matter and gather statements from MES staff. MES conducted an internal review and submitted its reply to the Commission, stating that the transfer was routine and within the framework of the employment agreement.

Contending that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over a service matter, MES approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. The petitioners argued that the complaint was a retaliation for the routine transfer and that the Commission was improperly exercising adjudicatory functions in a civil employment dispute.

The first respondent, through counsel, maintained that the complaint alleged caste-based verbal abuse, thereby falling within the Commission’s remit. The NCSC, through counsel, supported its authority to inquire into the complaint under Article 338(5) of the Constitution.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna began by analysing the scope of the first respondent’s employment, the terms of service, and the sequence of events leading to the complaint. Referring to the employment agreement, the Court noted:

“The employee would be liable to work in inter-Institutional transfers within the MES group of institutions.”

Examining the content and chronology of the complaint, the Court stated: “A perusal at the complaint would indicate grievances of 10 years vintage being projected, without uttering a word about all of that, at any time earlier. Therefore, nothing can be farther from truth.”

On the legal issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction, the Court detailed the constitutional framework governing the NCSC under Article 338, post the 65th Constitutional Amendment. It recorded:

“The powers conferred do not contemplate that the Commission can examine matters like a civil Court and adjudicate dispute and pronounce its decision either interim or final.”

Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court quoted:

“The Commission is not empowered to adjudicate and decide disputes between the parties and pronounce its orders either interim or final.”
(All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606)

Further citing Collector v. Ajit Jogi, (2011) 10 SCC 357, the Court recorded:

“The power to enquire into ‘deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’ did not include the power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any particular individual.”

Summarising the principle, the judgment stated:

“The Commission cannot be construed to be a Tribunal or a forum discharging the functions of a judicial character or Court. Article 338... does not entrust the Commission with the power to take up the role of a Court or an adjudicatory Tribunal and determine the rights of parties inter se.”

Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court found: “There is neither atrocity nor abuses that are hurled against the first respondent. It is a canard presented by the employee against the employer before the Commission.”

It concluded that the complaint was a misuse of protective statutory mechanisms: “The Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint, which on the face of it, is a misuse of the provisions of the Act, projecting abuse and imaginary atrocity.”

Also Read: No Statutory Precedence Between Planning and Acquisition Laws’: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Rohtak Land Acquisition, Rejects NCRPB Act Challenge

Issuing its final order, the Court stated: “In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings before the Commission suffering from want of jurisdiction, in the peculiar facts of the case, needs to be obliterated.”

Accordingly, the Court ordered:

“The writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in file No.06/APCR/47/2023-RU, before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes stand quashed.”

It further recorded: “I.A.No.1/2024 stands disposed, as a consequence.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Pradeep S. Sawkar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B. Nagendra, Advocate, Sri B.S. Venkatanarayan, Advocate

Case Title: The Mysore Education Society and Another v. Sri Babu P. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:13035
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17808 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]