- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) By a letter No. 9/d/sctc/m (S) /93 dated 4/3/1993, the National commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereafter referred to as "the Commission") directed the Executive Director of the Indian overseas Bank, Respondent 3, thus: "No.9/d/sctc/m (S) /93 4/03/1993 Dear Shri K. Subramanian, Please refer to the Commission letter No. 9/d/sctc/m (S) /92 dated 18/2/1993 in the matter of contravention of government directives relating to reservation for SC/st in Indian Overseas Bank and other matters adversely affecting their interests. The Commission had desired the reply of Bank within 7 days of said letter. It is a matter of concern that the reply from Bank has not reached the Commission till date. In view of the prima facie examination of the matter and considering the fact that the Bank is reportedly going ahead with the promotion process, the Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 2 of the Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1990 hereby directs the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter. The Commission also direct for requisitioning of all records in custody of Bank relating to the said matter be produced before it. For this purpose you are requested to ascertain a date from my office. Please advise compliance. Thanking you,yours faithfully, sd/- (B. SAMMAIAH) Member" it is a fact that when the letter was issued Respondent 3 was actually going through the process of deciding on promotion of various employees at various levels. On 4/3/1993 when the letter was written, Respondent 2 was perhaps not aware of the reply addressed to it by Respondent 3 on that very day meeting all the queries raised in the letter dated 18/2/1993, which letter was perhaps written on the representation made by the President of the All india Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare association, the appellant before us, alleging grave injustice to its members in matters of promotion. In view of the letter of Respondent 2 quoted above, respondent 3 issued a letter on the same day staying the promotion process. On 6/3/1993 the Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Respondent 4, and Respondents 5 to 8 who were candidates for selection for promotionfiled a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1362 of 1993 praying for a writ of mandamus quashing the order dated 4/3/1993, staying the selection process. The High court by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition with the a finding that the Commission had no power to issue interim orders like the one in question. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(3.) The short question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the Commission had the power to issue a direction in the nature of an interim injunction The appellant supports the letter dated 4/3/1993 of the Commission on the facts of the case which supposedly justify the passing of an interim direction of the type contained in the letter dated 4/3/199393. The appellant refers to Article 338, clauses (5 and (8 of the constitution introduced by the Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1990 to argue that the Commission had power to requisition public record and hence it could issue directions as if it enjoyed powers like a civil court for all purposes. Further the appellant contends that even a single member of the Commission has every authority to pass a direction on behalf of the entire Commission and hence the High court was wrong in expressing the view that a single member of the Commission could not have issued the direction contained in the letter dated 4/3/1993. The appellant further contends that no writ would lie against an interim order of the Commission.;