RAVINDRAKUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners' grievance is that the post of the Mayor of the Mysore City Corporation ought to have been reserved for a Corporator belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST). Sri H. Kantharaja, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7618 of 2012 submits that the impugned notification dated 25-2-2012 reserves the post in question for Scheduled Caste-Woman (SC(W)). He complains of the violation of Section 10(1-A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the said Act' for short). He also takes exception to the reserving of the posts of only Deputy Mayor in the entire State and that too 5 times. There is no reason why there should not be any reservation for the post of Mayor. He complains of the prejudice against the people belonging to the ST.

(2.) The prayer of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8068 of 2012 is for a direction to the respondent to reserve the post in question in favour of ST(W). Sri Praveen Raikote, the learned Counsel appearing for the said petitioner submits that the reservation roster and rotation are not being done objectively. In the last 15 years or so, not even once the post in question is earmarked for ST(W).

(3.) Sri N.B. Vishwanath, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the roster and rotation are being done strictly in accordance with Section 10(1-A) of the said Act. He submits that no grounds are made out for the interference of this Court. He would justify what the respondents have done.