1 CGHC010237842021 2026:CGHC:33186 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3904 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman, Head Office, Mahadeo Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattigarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Through President Office 61 Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jhumuk Lal Netam S/o Late Shri Darbaari Ram Netam R/o Gandhi Nagar, Ward No. 44, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 2 31/07/2026 1. Petitioner – Bank has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order/recommendation dated 12/07/2021 (Annexure P/1) by which respondent No. 1 – Commission has recommended/directed the petitioner - Bank to consider the case of respondent No. 2 for promotion on the post of Manager, Scale 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner – Bank submits that respondent No. 1 – Commission has no power and jurisdiction to entertain a service dispute and no recommendation ought to have been made by the Commission as it does not have the power and jurisdiction to make enquiry and adjudication with regard to the rights of the protected community and therefore, no adjudicatory jurisdiction exercising functions of judicial character can be exercised by the Commission, as such, the action of respondent No. 1 – Commission is unsustainable and bad in law. He would rely upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog and Anr.1. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order/recommendation and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 1 2017 SCC Online Chh 1135 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog has been constituted under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (hereinafter, “the Act, 1995”). The function of the Commission has been provided under Section 9 of Act, 1995. Section 9 of the Act, 1995 is reproduced below for sake of convenience:- “9. Functions of the Commission.-(1) It shall be the function of the Commission- to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force; to recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. to watch the proper and timely implementation of programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes; to tender advice regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institutions; 4 to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government. (2) The advice of the Commission shall, ordinarily be binding upon the State Government, where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it shall record its reason therefor.” 6. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995 would show that the function of the Commission is to protect the interest of the members of the Scheduled Tribes particularly the protection afforded to them under the Constitution or under any other law for time being in force and to ensure timely implementation of programmes meant for the members of the Scheduled Tribes and also to extend advice regarding reservation for them in public services and admission in educational institutions. By virtue of sub- section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995, advice of the Commission is ordinarily binding upon the Government and as such the function of the Commission is advisory/recommendatory in nature. From the scheme of the Act, 1995, it appears that the Commission has not been conferred with the adjudicatory function, it is only an advisory/recommendatory body having advisory jurisdiction. 7. In the matter of Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another2, the Supreme Court considered the extent of power of the State Commission for Women constituted under Section 3 of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 and after analyzing the scheme of the Act, it has been held that no power or authority has been conferred to the 2 (2010) 8 SCC 633 5 State Commission to adjudicate or determine of the rights of the parties. It was held succinctly as under:- “10. It was held succinctly as under:- “10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to take up studies on issues of economic, educational and health care that may help in overall development of the women of the State; gather statistics concerning offences against women; probe into the complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the authorities concerned for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights. However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties. 11. Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorised to decide these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State 6 Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court. 13. It is clear to us that the legislature has not gone so far as to give jurisdiction to the State Commission to make an order such as the one that has been made. From whatever angle we may examine the validity of the directions given by the State Commission in its order dated 11-5-2009, it appears to us that the said order was outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission. It was an order which the State Commission had no competence to make and, therefore, a void order. The High Court instead of correcting that order went a step further and directed that DNA test of the child as well as the appellant shall be conducted.” 8. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others 3 considered the duty of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes provided under Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India and held that the Commission cannot determine/adjudicate the caste or tribe status of any particular individual. Relevant extract of report states as under:- “17. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that the Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by ensuring: (i) anti-discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way of reservation and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of grievances. The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate. Having regard to sub- clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any specific complaint about deprivation of any rights and safeguards 3 (2011) 10 SCC 357 7 of Scheduled Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire into such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or the State Government requiring effective implementation of the safeguards and measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of the Scheduled Tribes. This 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. In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development4 directed constitution of scrutiny committees. 23. The contention that there was sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope of the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties. The same is the position even under Article 338-A (which was subsequently inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be sustained. The High Court was justified in setting aside the said order dated 16-10-2001.” 9. Following the principle of law enunciated in above-stated judgments rendered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the function of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog constituted under the Act of 1995 is advisory in nature. The power and jurisdiction to make enquiry and adjudication in regard to the rights of the Schedule Tribes have not been conferred to the State Commission by Act of 1995. Therefore, the Commission constituted 4 (1994) 6 SCC 241 8 under the Act of 1995 has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and as such State commission is not a tribunal exercising functions of judicial character or Civil Court and cannot determine rights of the Schedule Tribes. The State Commission can by virtue of functions entrusted to him by Section 9(1) of the Act can supervise and see that the protection granted to members of Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force is actually extended to them and proper implementation and execution of programmes meant for them and also to make recommendation for the State Government for insertion of certain tribes/group of tribes in the Constitution (ST) Order 1950 and further advice for representation of Scheduled Tribe in public service and admission in educational institution, but cannot perform adjudicatory function being only a body competent to make recommendation to the State Government as well as to make advise to the State Government. 10. Very recently, in the matter of Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Ors.5, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the powers entrusted to National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC) are limited in nature and observed in paragraph 13 as under :- “13. Both these judgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs support our conclusion. The powers entrusted to NCSC are limited in nature. Clearly NCSC and its other compatriots under Articles 338A and 338B are Constitutional Bodies with a socially beneficent purpose but quite apparently, the Legislature has prescribed a role that is recommendatory and advisory, 5 2026 SCC Online SC 1398 9 but certainly not adjudicatory. They are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions. We may only observe that this Court had in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women6, made similar observation regarding the Orissa State Commission for Women. It was observed in Para 11 as follows: 11. Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorised to decide these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court.” 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena (supra), Ajit P.K. Jogi (supra) and Mumbai Port Authority (supra), it is quite vivid that the relief claimed by respondent No. 2 is out and out pertaining to pure and simple service matter that could be considered and granted by the jurisdictional court and the respondent No. 1 – Commission does not have the power and jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate a dispute pertaining to service matter. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent No. 1 – Commission is absolutely unjustified in passing the impugned 6 (2010) 8 SCC 633 10 order/recommendation dated 12/07/2021 for promotion of respondent No. 2 to the post of Manager, Scale 4. Thus, the impugned order/recommendation dated 12/07/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 1 – Commision is hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet