NARAYANAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a person who has been elected to the membership of doddatekahalli Gram Panchayat in the election held on 8-3-2005. Petitioner had contested from a non-reserved constituency. The Deputy commissioner of the District issued notification dated 23-3-2005 vide annexure-C inter alia indicating the reservation of the posts of president in several Gram Panchayats of the district including sidlaghatta Taluk wherein the post of President in Doddatekahalli gram Panchayat had been reserved in favour of a woman candidate belonging to Backward Class 'b' category and the post of Upadhyaksha was not reserved. However, in terms of another notification dated 30-3-2005 in No. ELN (2) CR 59/2004-05 vide Annexure-D, the reservation for the post of President in this Gram Panchayat was sought to be de-reserved and made non-reserved.

(2.) PETITIONER though elected from the general constituency, is a person belonging to backward 'b' class and was aspiring to become the president of the Panchayat in the absence of any other candidate amongst the members of the panchayat in this category and the expectations were put paid because of the subsequent notification. Aggrieved by this subsequent notification dated 30-3-2005, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) SRI Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel has put forth a two-fold contention. It is firstly urged that the very reasoning mentioned in the notification to shift the reservation betrays the mala fide intention on the part of the authority issuing the notification to deny the petitioner the definite possibility of being elected as Adhyaksha of the panchayat; that having issued a notification dated 12-3-2005, it could not have meddled or modified the same to the detriment of the petitioner and the reason for shifting viz. , that there was no candidate belonging to Backward Class 'b' amongst the members was factually incorrect as petitioner was very much available and moreover, the modified notification is clearly in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act' ). The submission of Mr. Mahale is that the reason is not tenable as in the earlier round of election while the reservation was in favour of Backward Class 'a', there is no embargo under the proviso for reservation in the next round in favour of Backward Class 'b' as the reservations in respect of two categories are separate and independent; that while one-third of available posts are required to be reserved in favour of backward classes, 80% of it is required to be reserved in favour of Backward Class 'a' and 20% of it in favour of Backward Class 'b', in which event, Backward Class 'b' can take separate reservation and cannot be characterised as one which results in repetition in favour of backward classes for the purpose of ensuring rotation of reservations. Learned Counsel submits that for such reasons, the modified notification dated 30-3-2005 requires to be quashed and the earlier notification be restored.