GULZAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated March 26, 1975 (copy Annexure P. 1) whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Samana (respondent No. 2) co-opted Scheduled Caste candidates.

(2.) The election to the Panchayat Samiti, Samana, was held on February 26, 1975, and sixteen persons were elected. Under Rule 3 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis (Co-option of Members) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), the Deputy Commissioner or any other person appointed in this behalf is required to convene a meeting of the elected members for the purpose of co-opting members under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Under Section 5, four members, are to be co-opted from amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and two from amongst the woman candidates. In the election which took place, none of the members either from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Woman was elected. Respondent No. 2 convened a meeting for the purpose on March 26, 1975. In this meeting fifteen elected persons participated and all the members requested the President, that is respondent No. 2, that Shri Valoo Ram, Shri Tulsi Ram, Shri Gulzar Singh and Shri Chhota Singh out of the Harijans and Shrimati Bachan Kaur and Shrimati Santokhi Devi out of women should be co-opted as is required under Section 5(2)(cc) of the Act and rule 4-A of the Rules. Respondent No. 2 did not agree to this end relying upon memorandum No. DPB. 4/75/15455, dated March 14, 1975, issued from the Development Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Punjab to all the Deputy Commissioners of Punjab State decided that as Shrimati Bachan Kaur is a Scheduled Caste, she could be considered as the fourth Harijan member and as such only three out of Scheduled Castes unsuccessful candidates would be co-opted. In this view of the matter, he co-opted only three members, namely, Valoo Ram, Tulsi Ram and Chhota Singh. The petitioner lost in tie and, therefore, could not be opted. It is against this co-option held on March 26, 1975, that present petition has been filed.

(3.) It is pertinent to reproduce Section 5(2)(cc) of the Act which is in the following terms :-