IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2810 of 2007 THE BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL & ANR . Versus THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mithilesh Mowar, Adv. Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent no. 1 and 2 :- Mr. Sarvo deo Singh, Adv. For the Respondent no. 3:- Mr. Vindhyachal Kumar, Adv. ---------- 3. 4.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as also for respondent no. 3. The respondent Commission has been created under Article 338 of the Constitution of India and its duties are defined under Sub Clause (5). In pursuance of a complaint made by respondent no. 3, the Commission has made a recommendation dated 10.1.2007 in context for appointment in the reserved category with certain consequential observations which prompted the filing of the writ petition as the petitioner apprehended that it was more in the nature of a mandatory direction for compliance by making appointment and consequential action as directed therein. Counsel for the Commission and respondent no. 3 are not at issue that the order dated 10.1.2007 of the Commission is in the nature of a recommendation. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in (1996) 6 SCC 606 to urge that the Commission was only a recommendatory body and it could not give directions of the present mandatory nature. Counsel for the Commission relies upon sub Clause (9) of Article 338 of the Constitution of the India to urge that where policy matters affecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are concerned, the State Government was required to consult the Commission. If, therefore, the Commission has made a recommendation, the petitioner is required to apply its mind on the recommendation and proceed appropriately in law. The very term ‘recommendation’ connotes the expression of an opinion or advise. If there be any doubt on this issue, a bare perusal of sub Section (5) of Article 338 makes it apparent that the purpose of the Commission is to make recommendations of measures for effecting implementation of safeguards and the protection of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes inter alia. These reports are then to be laid before the ‘House’ explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations as delineated in Sub Section (6) of Article 338. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly 3 submits that the recommendation is now required to be considered by the petitioner institution in terms of Article 338(6) of the Constitution of India and appropriate orders passed. It goes without saying that if the petitioner institution proposes not to accept the recommendations, the order has to be reasoned and speaking. With the aforesaid clarification with regard to the order dated 10.1.2007, the application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)