JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Subodh Kantak who appears along with Mr. Nikhil Vaze and Ms. Saicha Desai for the Petitioner. Mr. Arolkar appears for Respondent No.2. Mr. Priolkar appears for Respondent No.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. S.G. Palkar, appears for Respondent No.6. 2. We issue Rule in this petition and with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2022 made by the Chairperson of the Goa Commission for SC/ST. 4. The impugned Judgment and Order was made by the Chairperson on a complaint made by Respondent No.6 concerning the issue of reservations to the post of Assistant Professor in the Petitioner-College. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Chairperson has issued the following directions:- ''DIRECTIONS The Respondent is totally failed to maintain the reserved percentage while proposed to fill the vacancies, vide the advertisement dated 27th July 2021 and more weightage given to fill the unreserved categorise, even though the percentage of unreserved categories is more than the admissible percentage i.e. The level is cross from 40% to 91%, which is against the provision of law and it proves that the Principal of the College is totally bias while filling the vacancies available with the Respondent. Therefore, the principal is liable for action inperson, for depriving the right of the employment of the reserved categories. In case the Respondent College is allowed to fill the post as per the published advertisement, than the percentage of the unreserved category will shoot up to 98% which is against the reservation policy. Therefore it is necessary to stuck down the published advertisement and direct the Respondent to issue the correct advertisement to fill the backlog post of reserve category within the available vacancies. This Commission issued direction to the respondent to follow the procedure laid down in the OM dated 2nd July 1997 and in terms of article 16(4)(b). The Respondent shall issue a fresh advertisement for filling the backlog vacancy in the ST category and the replacement post of the Assistant Professor in Computer Science. This Commission issued direction to the respondent to follow the procedure laid down in the OM dated 2nd July 1997 and in terms of article 16(4)(b). The Respondent shall issue a fresh advertisement for filling the backlog vacancy in the ST category and the replacement post of the Assistant Professor in Computer Science. The Respondent shall submit the detail report in respect of filling the backlog vacancies of ST category and replacement post in question and submit the action taken report, within three months from the date of this instruction. In case any lapses found while executing the direction the Commission reserved the right to recommend to the Government to initiate the action against the Respondent holding responsible in person and further recommendation to the Government to stop/withhold the grant of the Respondent Institution. Accordingly the dispute in question is dispose off with the direction to the Respondent to fill the backlog vacancies in accordance with law the Applicant is free to approach back to this Commission in case the Respondent violates the above direction. Accordingly the dispute stands disposed off with no cost. Given Under my hand and seal of this Commission.'' 5. Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that in terms of the Goa Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2010, neither the Commission nor its Chairperson has the power to issue any directions as issued in the impugned order by adjudicating rights of the parties. He relied on All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and Others vs. Union of India & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 606 and Collector, Bilaspur vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Others, (2011) 10 SCC 357 in support of his submissions. 6. Mr. Kantak submits that at the highest, the Commission can make recommendations in terms of Sections 11 and 12 of the said Act, but not issue any positive directions. 7. Mr. Arolkar, Mr. Palkar and Mr. Priolkar concede that no positive directions can be issued by the Commission or the Chairperson under the said Act. However, they submit that the impugned Judgment and Order can now be regarded as a recommendation and processed accordingly. Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, also agrees that the above course of action could be adopted in this case. 8. However, they submit that the impugned Judgment and Order can now be regarded as a recommendation and processed accordingly. Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, also agrees that the above course of action could be adopted in this case. 8. In All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all the procedural powers of a Civil Court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into the matters listed and that too for a limited purpose. The powers of a Civil Court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not infer in the commission nor can such power be inferred or derived from the reading of Clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission with which we are concerned is constituted in terms of Article 338 of the Constitution. 9. Similarly, in Ajit P.K. Jogi and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the scope of the duties of the Commission did not involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to rights of parties or the caste status of the parties. The Court noted that same is the position even under Article 338-A which was subsequently inserted providing for a separate commission for Scheduled Tribes in identical duties. The Court also noted that if any complaint is received about deprivation of rights and safeguards of the members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, the same will have to be referred to the State Government or the authority concerned to take necessary action. The Commission can certainly follow up the matter with the State Government or such authority dealing with the matter to ensure that the complaint is inquired into and appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government or the authorities do not take action, the Commission could either itself or through affected persons, initiate legal action to ensure that there is proper compliance. But the Commission cannot undertake the exercise itself as was done in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid and the concessions made, the directions in the impugned order will have to be set aside. But the impugned order can be considered as a recommendation of the Chairperson and processed accordingly. We order accordingly. 11. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid and the concessions made, the directions in the impugned order will have to be set aside. But the impugned order can be considered as a recommendation of the Chairperson and processed accordingly. We order accordingly. 11. We make it clear that we have not gone into the issue of rights and contentions of other parties including in particular, the rights and contentions of the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 herein, and therefore, nothing in this order should be taken as a reflection on either the merits or demerits of the versions of these two parties. 12. The Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any order for costs.