PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order/notification 28.6.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana - respondent No.2, on the ground that he has no power to change the notification of the reservation of seat of Sarpanch, after the election of Panches held on 26.5.2008, as also, no reasons have been given for changing the category of reservation.

(2.) In this case, earlier vide notification dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) issued under section 12 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respondent No.2 had reserved the seat of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Hambran, Block Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Ludhiana West, District Ludhiana, for Scheduled Caste (Woman). The said reservation was made district wise, on the basis of population of the Scheduled Castes in the district. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued vide the impugned notification dated 28.6.2008, whereby the post of Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat was reserved for General category, instead of Scheduled Caste (Woman). The said reservation was made block-wise in view of sub-rule (3) to Rule 3 of the Punjab Reservation for the Offices of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats, Chairman and Vice Chairman of Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reservation Rules'), which was introduced vide notification dated May 8, 2008. Since the reservation made vide earlier notification (Annexure P-1) was district-wise and was not block-wise in accordance with the Reservation Rules, therefore, the said corrigendum was issued.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that once the reservation was made by the Deputy Commissioner, then he has no jurisdiction to change the same. A similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 8468 of 2008, titled as Harmeet Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission and others, decided on 29.5.2008, in which even the vires of sub-rule (3) to Rule 3 of the Reservation Rules were challenged being ultra vires Article 243 (D) of the Constitution of India or Section 12 (1) of the Act. While upholding the said sub-rule, this Court held that the block-wise reservation made under the said sub-rule was correct and the corrigendum issued for change of category of reservation was upheld.