ANIL JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certioari for quashing the order/proceedings dated 29.8.2006 whereby respondent No. 4 belonging to the Backward Class was declared to have been elected from general category as President of Municipal Council, Hisar.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that general election of the Municipal Council Hisar was held on 16.4.2005 for 31 Wards in which 15 Wards were reserved for general category, 5 Wards were reserved for Schedule Castes and 2 Wards were reserved for Backward class category and 9 Wards for women category. After the election, the Election Commission, Haryana in pursuance to the Section 24(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act (for short the Act) notified the names of persons who were declared elected as the members of the Municipal Council, Hisar by notification dated 19.4.2005 in which the names of the members with their parentage and the Ward of the category from which they were returned was mentioned. The said notification has been attached as Annexure P.1 with the present writ petition which shows that the petitioner was elected as Municipal Council from Ward No. 2 from general category whereas respondent No. 4 was elected from Ward No. 18 which was reserved for Backward Class category. After the declaration of the election in order to fill up the vacant post, the elections were held for the office of President, Municipal Council, Hisar on 29.8.2006 at 11 A.M. in the office of Municipal Council, Hisar under the chairmanship of City Magistrate-cum-Prescribed Authority, Hisar which was duly authorised in this regard by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar vide his letter dated 25.8.2006. The election to the post of President was held in terms of Section 18 of the Act, which reads as under :

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to Section 10(5), the post of the President has to be filled by election by rotation and by the lots i.e. general category, Scheduled Caste, Backward Class and women categories. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that as general category candidate cannot contest the election to the post reserved for Scheduled Caste, Backward Class or woman category. Similarly when the post is reserved for general category it is not open for the persons elected against reserved category to contest election for the post of President reserved for General Category. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi v. The State of Haryana and ors., 1996(2) RRR 292 : (1996-2) P.L.R. 625, wherein it has been held as under :-