Judgment :- 1. Heard the arguments of Mr. Sivanandha, learned counsel for the petitioner, on 07. 2008 and the petitioner Mr. S. Arunagiri argued in person on 07. 2008 and Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the records. 2. The first respondent is the Chairman of the National Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes, New Delhi. When questioned as to why the said Commission was made as a party when no relief was claimed, the petitioner admitted that it was impleaded so that it will apprise of the developments in this case. 3. It is highly improper on the part of the petitioner to array parties without claiming any relief against the said party. Whenever any array of parties is made, it is only with a view to get any relief from such of those parties or to establish certain want of good faith or mala fide as otherwise, there is no necessity to make them as parties and unnecessarily drag them on public cause to appear before the Court either in person or through counsel. 4. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association and others v. Union of India and others [1996 (6) SC 606], SC / ST Commission has no power to deal with any service matter as it had not been granted any power to issue any interim order even though it is clothed with the powers of the Civil Court. In this context, it is relevant to extract the following passages found in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment:- Para 10: "Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article 338, the words used are “the Commission shall ... have all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit”. But the words “all the powers of a Civil Court” have to be exercised “while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5”. All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. Para 11: The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4-3-1993. The order itself being bad for want of jurisdiction, all other questions and considerations raised in the appeal are redundant. The High Court was justified in taking the view it did. The appeal is dismissed. No costs." 5. In the light of the above, the first respondent will stand deleted from the array of parties in this writ petition. 6. The prayer of the writ petitioner was to set aside the order dated 18. 2002 issued by the second respondent as well as the order dated 24.02.2003, which is a letter sent by the third respondent through the first respondent. Insofar as the letter dated 24.02.2003 is concerned, it was a reply sent by the third respondent to the SC / ST Commission in respect of the queries raised by them and it is only a response to the query and no cause of action had arisen to challenge the same. As already stated, the SC/ST Commission has no power to deal with any service cases directly and any enquiry conducted by them is only to recover a report from the Commission to be presented to the Government periodically. Therefore, the challenge to the letter dated 24.02.2003 sent by way of response to the National Commission and the order dated 18. 2002 are misconceived and in the light of the above, the Commission does not have any locus standi to question the same. Accordingly, that prayer cannot be granted. 7. This only leaves with the last prayer, viz., the consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to promote the petitioner as Deputy General Manager notionally w.e.f. 2000 and to accord all service benefits such as seniority, backwages, etc. Accordingly, that prayer cannot be granted. 7. This only leaves with the last prayer, viz., the consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to promote the petitioner as Deputy General Manager notionally w.e.f. 2000 and to accord all service benefits such as seniority, backwages, etc. The petitioner, who entered in the service of the second respondent in the year 1979 as a Junior Executive (Engineering), subsequently got several promotions and during the year 1993, he became Manager (E4 Level). 8. A counter affidavit dated 27. 2005 has been filed wherein it is stated that during the year 2001, the petitioner was considered for the post of Deputy General Manager and he was not found fit. Again in 2002, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) did not find him suitable for promotion and the same was the case for the years 2003 to 2005. The stand of the respondents was that during June 1997, the petitioner was interviewed by the DPC and the petitioner went through the promotion to the post of Senior Manager along with 169 candidates which included 21 officers belonging to SC / ST category. During that period, the Committee also consisted of SC / ST representatives as directed by the Central Government and 14 SC / ST officers were promoted to E4 Grade from E5 Grade during the selection in the year 1997. As against the same, 21 persons were considered, which works out to 66% in that year. But on a comparative merit, the petitioners name was not included along with the successful candidates. 9. When the petitioner was not selected during the year 1997, as a Senior Manager, he cannot now seek for promotion to the post of DGM, that too, w.e.f. 26. 2000. It is also stated that there is no reservation for SC / ST candidates for promotion to the post of DGM from Senior Manager. Therefore, when he was considered for the year 20012002, his name was not recommended by the DPC for promotion and the same thing was repeated in the subsequent years also. Therefore, it was stated that the petitioner has no cause for complaint when the entire interest of SC / ST employees was taken into account by the respondent BHEL. 10. Therefore, when he was considered for the year 20012002, his name was not recommended by the DPC for promotion and the same thing was repeated in the subsequent years also. Therefore, it was stated that the petitioner has no cause for complaint when the entire interest of SC / ST employees was taken into account by the respondent BHEL. 10. Though an averment is made in the affidavit that fake averments are made that the respondents are prejudiced against the petitioner and that they are always in the habit of creating records undermining the efficiency of the weaker section, it was stoutly denied by the respondents in the counter statement and the result of the selection made during the year 1997 was also brought to the notice of this Court. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that whether it is a promotion or direct recruitment, it should have a post-based reservation and when 1252 vacancies are available in the post of DGM, 282 posts should be reserved for SC / ST and on the date of filing of the writ petition, only 189 persons were working in that post. Therefore, a direction should be given to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect. 12. The petitioner arguing in person, submitted that he is one of the most efficient officer and he has got done several good things to the BHEL. All these self-claiming laurels cannot be considered in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though he has made vague allegations against the entire establishment, he is not able to pinpoint any particular allegation against any particular officer and even in the written submission submitted by him, his only contention was that there has been a large scale manipulation in the matter of DPC awarding marks. These submissions and the working of DPC, which was convened in the year 2001, without any material, cannot be gone into in a writ petition filed in the year 2004. Unless there is a mala fide attributed to the members of the DPC, this Court, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot decide the relative merits of the candidates, who have been screened and selected by the DPC. 13. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 13. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.