( 1 )

( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE present petition raises a legal issue about powers of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes to exercise jurisdiction of review in respect of an earlier order passed by the said Commission.

( 4 ) THE factual matrix is limited. Respondent No. 2 applied for admission to Ph. D (Programme) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the petitioner Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, and was offered admission. On such admission the following communications were issued to respondent No. 2 which was accepted by the said respondent.

"through another letter you have been offered admission to the Ph. D. Programme from the 2nd semester 2001-2002 commencing from 1. 01. 2002. I am glad to inform you that you have also been selected for the award of half-time teaching/research assistantship as per rules, for which you will be required to render 8 hours of the work per week outside your normal academic work. In addition, you will also be eligible for contingency grant every year as per rules of the Institute. The above Assistantship has been awarded only for the IInd semester 2001-2002 and will be renewed for the next semesters) subject to your satisfactory academic performance; minimum SGPA of 7. 00 in the preceding semester (if assigned course work during that semester) and your satisfactory performance in the discharge of responsibilities assigned under the Assistantship scheme. The maximum period for which this Assistantship can be drawn is 5 years for Ph. D and 4 semester for M. S. (Research) students. "

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the assistantship had been offered to respondent No. 2 subject to the minimum SGPA grade of 7. 00 The Ordinance and Regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Indian Institute of Technology of Delhi also provided in Regulations 6. 3 and 20. 1 as under:

"6. 3 the minimum CGPA requirement shall be 7. 50 on a 10 point scale for admission to the candidacy of Ph. D. Degree. If the CGPA of any student is below 7. 00 at the end of any semester, his registration will be terminated with immediate effect. However, if his CGPA is above 7. 00 but less than 7. 50, he may be asked to take more courses in order to enhance his CGPA to 7. 50 or above, subject to the condition that this should be achieved within one semester. "

"20. 1 registration of a student/candidate shall be cancelled in any one of the following eventualities, after due approval of Dean PGSandr (vi) if his CGPA is below 7. 00 at any time while doing course work. "

( 6 ) IN the first semester respondent No. 2 was, however, granted only CGPA 3. 00. The petitioner complained of discrimination by addressing a representation to respondent No. 1 Commission and on such representation respondent No. 1 Commission issued a letter dated 01. 07. 2002 to the petitioner calling for the relevant records since it proposed to hold an enquiry within the parameters of Article 338 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner produced the relevant records and appeared on various dates of hearing and ultimately an order was passed on 23. 09. 2002 finding no discrimination against respondent No. 2. It was noted that respondent No. 2 had also made some grievance about the Research Supervisor and findings were recorded by the Commission on both the said aspects and the issue of discrimination. The relevant findings are as under :

"the Registrar pointed out that the petitioner himself has confirmed in the appraisal of the teaching quality of the Research Supervisor stating that Dr. Ravi (Research Supervisor) has great proficiency in the subject and it was outstanding. Moreover, this was after the examination and before the declaration of the results. Had he not been satisfied with the teaching he could have given some other kind of appraisal. I feel that since the petitioner has not got the minimum marks requir