Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 828

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Mumbai Port Authority – Appellant
Versus
National Commission For Scheduled Caste & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9769 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.33359 of 2025)
Decided On : 28-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): M/S. Meharia & Company, AOR Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv. Ms. Tannishtha Singh, Adv. Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sambhav, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Anish Venkatesh Bindlish, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vaidushya Parth, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Dhatri Singh, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Hari Preethi, Adv. Mr. Harshit Vashish, Adv. Ms. Bhavini Vashisht, Adv. Ms. Suchismita Bhuyan, Adv. Mr. Guneswaran PV, Adv. Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arunima Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. V. Elangovan, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Mor, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Vinod K. Soni, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes – National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot pass orders in respect of service matters.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Articles 338A and 338B – Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes – While it has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence it does not have power to make order in furtherance of that evidence – NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask concerned Government, either Centre or State to act thereupon – Power provided is to enquire into deprivation of “rights and safeguards” of Scheduled Castes – Powers entrusted to NCSC are limited in nature – NCSC and its other compatriots under Articles 338A and 338B are Constitutional Bodies with a socially beneficent purpose but Legislature has prescribed a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but not adjudicatory – They are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions – Directions issued by NCSC in as much as it relates to payment of arrears is declared to be contrary to provisions of Constitution and as such non-est in law – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 9, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes can pass orders in respect of service matters and whether such orders are directory or mandatory is the issue that arises in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
It flows from this that provision of safeguards is a function of Legislature, and NCSC’s role is to monitor that true intent of safeguards is being implemented and met with as a ground reality. Sub-clause (d) provides that Commission will present annually or at other times as seen fit, reports to President regarding the working of their safeguards. This implies that safeguards are those recommendations made to State or Union Government that are in furtherance of its functions.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes¹[NCSC] can pass orders in respect of service matters and whether such orders are directory or mandatory is the issue that arises in this appeal which flows from Writ Petition (L) No.1449 of 2025, titled analogously dated 19th August 2025.

3. Certain past events require recall to contextualise the question above.

3.1 Respondent No.3, namely Madhavi K. Chandorkar, member of the scheduled caste, was employed by the appellant as a typist cum computer clerk on 9th July 1997.

3.2 Pursuant to the rules, at the time in force i.e. Office Memorandum²[OM] dated 21st January 2002, she was promoted to Stenographer Grade-I. The said OM had withdrawn an earlier OM dated 30th January 1997. Here itself we may reproduce the relevant extracts of the two OMs:

OM dated 30.01.1997

“…

3. Having regard to the above judgement of the Supreme Court, it has been decided to modify the existing policy of fixing seniority on promotion on the lines mentioned in para 2 above. Accordingly, it has been decided to add the following proviso to general principle. 5(1) contained in MHA ( now DOPT) OM No. 9/11/55- RPS dated 22.12.59 and para 2.2 of this Department OM No.22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 3.7.1986:-

"Provided that if a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe is promoted to an immediate higher post/grade against a reserved vacancy earlier than his senior general-OBC candidate who is promoted later to the said immediate higher post/grade the general-OBC candidate will regain his seniority over such earlier promoted candidate of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe in the immediate higher post/grade."

4. These orders shall take affect from the date of issue of this Officer Memorandum.

Sd/-

(K.K. Jha)

Director(E)”

OM dated 21.01.2002

“…

3. The Government have now decided to negate the effects of the DOP&T OM dated 30th January, 1997 by amending Article 16(4A) OF the Constitution right from the date of its inclusion in the Construction i.e. 17th June, 1995, with ask to allow the Government servants belonging to SCs/STs to retain the seniority in the case of promotion by virtue of rule of reservation. In other words, the candidate belonging to general/OBC category promoted later will be placed junior to the SC/ST Government servants promoted earlier even though by virtue of the rule of reservation.

4. Therefore, in pursuance of the aforementioned Constitution {Eighty-fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, it has been decided as follows;

(i) (a) SC/ST Government servants shall, on their promotion by virtue of rule of reservation/roster, be entitled to consequential seniority also; and

(b) the above decision shall be effective from 17th June, 1995.

(ii) The instruction contained in DOPT O.M.N.o.20011/2/97-Estt.(D) dated 30.1.1997 as well as the clarifications contained in DOPT O.M.No.20011/2/97-Estt.(D) dated 21.3.1997 shall stand withdrawn w.e.f.30.1.1997 itself.

(iii) Seniority of Government servants determined in the light of O.M. was never issued.

…”

3.3 The 2002 OM was challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1164 of 2012. In terms of order dated 30th November 2016/1st December 2016, the said challenge mounted by Mumbai Port Trust Non-SC/ST Employees Association, succeeded. The impugned OM was quashed and set aside. A Special Leave Petition preferred against this judgment is pending consideration before this Court. For clarity, it may be stated that the same is not in issue before us.

3.4 The directions issued in the above noted judgment were implemented and the seniority of the employees of the appellant was reset accordingly. For implementing the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment, a circular dated 27th December 2018 was issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Appellant stating that no promotions will be granted to SC/ST employees except those made in accordance with the 1997 OM. Resetting the seniority, it was directed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 828

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.Mumbai Port Authority – AppellantVersusNational Commission For Scheduled Caste & Ors. – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 9769 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.33359 of 2025)Decided On : 28-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINTPowers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes – National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot pass orders in respect of service matters.

Cases Referred (4)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Mumbai Port Authority – Appellant
Versus
National Commission For Scheduled Caste & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9769 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.33359 of 2025)
Decided On : 28-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINT
Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes – National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot pass orders in respect of service matters.