RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made in this petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari/mandamus declaring the election of respondent No. 5 as president of Municipal Committee Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, being illegal and void with a direction to the respondent-authorities to hold fresh election to the office of President of the Committee in accordance with the rules.

(2.) ELECTION to the Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda was held on 28. 12. 1994. 13 Members were elected to the Committee, whose names were notified by the State of Haryana on 23. 1. 1995. On 20. 1. 1995, Government issued a notification, Annexure P3, that the office of President of the Committee will be reserved for Scheduled Castes (Men ). One Sant Lai, who was a Scheduled Caste and had contested the election from Ward No. 9 reversed for Scheduled Castes, was elected as president of the Committee. Sant Lal resigned from the office of president of the Committee on 5. 6. 1996. A meeting of the Members of the Committee was called for 10. 7. 1996 to elect a new president in place of Sant Lai. The meeting was thereafter adjourned to 22. 7. 1996. Smt. Devi Mehra, respondent No. 5, a Scheduled Caste who had contested the election from a ward meant for general category candidates was elected as president of the Committee. Petitioners have challenged the election of respondent No. 5 on two grounds; (i) that a candidate who had contested the election from a ward meant for general category candidates although a Scheduled Caste, cannot be elected as President of the Municipal Committee where the post of President is reserved for Scheduled Castes, and (ii) that the office of President of the Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda was reserved for Scheduled Castes (Men) and, therefore, a Scheduled Caste women could not be elected as its president. "

(3.) RESPONDENTS have taken the stand that as respondent No. 5 was an elected member belonging to the Scheduled Castes, she was, therefore, entitled to contest the election for the post of President of the Municipal Committee; that it made no difference that respondent No. 5 had contested the election from a ward meant for general category candidates; that she was entitled to be elected as President of the Municipal Committee in her capacity as a Scheduled Caste and that there was no bar to the election of a Scheduled Caste (Woman) where the post of President was reserved for scheduled Castes (Men ).