SAYALI ROSHAN JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, I had observed in my order dated 24.08.2017 in paragraphs 2 to 12 as under:

(2.) The Petitioner has tendered the service affidavit sworn on oath dated 30.08.2017 stating therein that the notice was served by hand delivery on Respondent No.4 (Asmita). A tiny signature, appearing on page 3 accompanying the service affidavit, is said to be the signature of Respondent No.4 (Asmita), according to the Petitioner.

(3.) Learned AGP has tendered an affidavit in reply dated 31.08.2017 filed by the Returning Officer/ Respondent No.3 herein. Based on the said affidavit, learned AGP submits that as the Petitioner was elected as a Councillor on the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste (Women) category, she cannot contest the election for the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste general as the said post is not reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). Further contention is that the Councillors, who have been elected in the Municipal Councils to the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women/Female) or Scheduled Caste (Male), would not be eligible for the election to the District Planning Committee as the post is reserved for Scheduled Caste and there is no reference as to whether, it would be open for all candidates falling in the Scheduled Caste category to contest for the said post.