Dismissed

Sri Sachin N G v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/2085/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notification reserving posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha for women in a single Gram Panchayat. Relying on A226, A227 of the Constitution and Section 44 of the PR Act, the Court held reservation is calculated at the Taluk level, not individually, and dismissed the plea citing precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; interim order granted stands dissolved.

Sri Sachin N G Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.2085 OF 2021 (LB-ELE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SACHIN N.G., S/O GANESH N.E., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC:MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI PANCHAYAT RESIDING AT NERALAMAKKI POST: KYAMANAHALLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 401.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRAKASH M.PATIL, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 01.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 401.

¶13

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 401.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR (ELECTION) SAKALESHPURA TALUK KYAMANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 401.

¶16

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.

¶17

SMT.SAHANA K.R., W/O PUNITH MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT AGALATTI VILLAGE KYAMANAHALLI POST, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK

¶18

HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶19

GEETHA W/O HARISH M.S., MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE KYAMANAHALLI POST, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶20

AKASH H.T., S/O LATE THARESH H.R.,

¶21

¶22

MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH HADIGE VILLAGE AND POST, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶23

MANIKANTA J.R., S/O RUDRAIAH J.B., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH RAGIGUNDI- JAMBALLI VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶24

MALLESH M.J S/O JOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH MADANAPURA VILLAGE, HADIGE- POST HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶25

KUMARA S/O BILIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH R/AT KYAMANAHALLI VILLAGE HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶26

SMT.PREMA H.G., W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶27

¶28

MEMBER OF KYAMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH R/AT HULLEMANE VILLAGE HADIGE POST, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶29

... RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶31

SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

¶32

SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R12 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DTD.16.1.2021 ISSUED IN NO.ELECTION (2)56/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.10.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the

¶37

order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16-01-2021 whereby the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Kyamanahlli Gram Panchayat of Sakaleshpur Taluk are reserved for General (Woman) and Scheduled Caste (Woman) respectively.

¶38

¶39

Heard Sri Prakash M.Patil, learned counsel for the

¶40

petitioner, Sri Nithyananda K.R., learned High Court Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for respondents 6 to 12.

¶41

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

¶42

The petitioner is elected as Member of Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat on 30-12-2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District issued a Notification on 27-02-2007 depicting list of reservations made to 258 Gram Panchayats of the District which also contains reservations made to the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Sakaleshpur Taluk in which Kyamanahalli comes. At Sl.No.21 of the said notification Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat is listed. The reservation as notified for the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha was for General and Scheduled Caste (Woman) respectively. For the next ensuing elections a

¶43

¶44

notification was issued on 25-09-2012 and insofar as it pertains to Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha were reserved for Scheduled Caste and General (Woman) respectively. In the next ensuing elections similar notification was issued on 11.06.2015 and insofar as it pertains to Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat the post of Adyaksha was reserved for General (Woman) and the post of Upadyaksha for General Category.

¶45

A notification is issued on 16-01-2021 notifying elections to 264 Gram Panchayats for the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha. Insofar as it pertains to Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat the post of Adyaksha was reserved to General (Woman) and the post of Upadyaksha was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). It is this notification that is called in question by the petitioner.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that men belonging to General category of Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat have not got an

¶47

¶48

opportunity for the last 30 years to contest the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha as the case would be and in that light once the notification was issued by the 2^nd respondent and petitioner filed objections/representations seeking change in reservation for the said Gram Panchayat. That having not been considered, the present petition is filed.

¶49

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Nithyananda.K.R. would refute the submissions and contends that reservation for the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha was not worked out taking one Gram Panchayat as a unit but the entire taluk. The reservation is worked out in terms of operative guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and in terms of the present guidelines dated 01-012021 it is depicted that as far as possible reservation should not be repeated from women to women both for Adyaksha and Upadyaksha. Since it is as far as possible, it would sometimes result in reservation of both the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha being reserved for women of any category.

¶50

¶51

The learned counsel Sri Pratheep K.C. representing

¶52

respondents 6 to 12 would toe the lines of the learned High Court Government Pleader and contends that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the sole ground that there is no repetition in the reservation as contended. Merely because the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha are incidentally being reserved for women, that cannot give a right to the petitioner to challenge the said reservation for the sole Gram Panchayat i.e., Kyamanahalli.

¶53

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶54

The afore-narrated facts with regard to the seats being reserved for Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat from 2007 onwards being a matter of record are not reiterated. The issue in the lis is with regard to reservation. In Kyamahalli Gram Panchayat insofar as it pertains to Adyaksha and Upadyaksha the post of Adyaksha in the present elections is reserved for General (Woman) and for the post of Upadyaksha it is reserved for

¶55

¶56

Scheduled Caste (Woman). The contention is that no men belonging to General Category has been able to contest the elections for either the post of Adyaksha or the post of Upadyaksha since there has been reservation for women in General Category both for Adyaksha or Upadyaksha. To consider this contention, it is germane to notice the guidelines under which the present policy of reservation is worked out by the Election Commission as notified on 1-01-2021. Clause 7 of

¶57

the guidelines in the preamble reads as follows:

¶58

"7. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀArPÉ (6) gÀAvÉ, ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ÄÃ¸À°gÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ MlÄÖ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ»¼Á «ÄÃ¸À®Ä ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ CzsÀðQÌAvÀ (50%) ºÉZÀÄÑ §AzÀ°è, CAvÀºÀ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ªÀÄ»¼Á ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß "¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUÀðzÀ ªÀÄ»¼É" UÉ ( Unserved Women) ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è PÀrvÀUÉÆ½¹, D ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß "¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUÀð" ( Unserved) zÀ "¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå" ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ºÉaÑUÉ ªÀiÁr MmÁÖgÉ vÁ®ÆèQ£À MlÄÖ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ CzsÀðzÀµÀÄÖ ¥Àj«ÄwUÉ ªÀÄ»¼Á ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹Ã«ÄvÀUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ."

¶59

Sub-clause (vii) of clause 3 reads as follows:-

¶60

"vii. CzsÀåPÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀÄªÁUÀ MAzÉÃ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß KPÀ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÁzsÀåªÁzÀµÀÄÖ ªÀÄnÖUÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.

¶61

CzsÀåPÀ ë C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ eÁw	G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ
C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ eÁw	C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ eÁw
C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ	C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ eÁw

¶62

¶63

C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆavÀ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ »AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀð (C) »AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀð (C) »AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀð (§) »AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀð (§) ªÀÄ»¼É ªÀÄ»¼É

¶64

vÁ®ÆèPÀÄªÁgÀÄ CzsÀåPÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀÄªÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä J¯Áè CzsÀåPÀë ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."

¶65

A conjoint reading of both the aforesaid clauses in the said guidelines would indicate that reservation is not worked out taking a single Gram Panchayat as a unit. But, the entire taluk is taken as a Unit and then reservation is rendered 50% to women belonging to any category.

¶66

The guidelines also stipulate that as far as possible repetition of candidates belonging to a particular category should be avoided. In the said guidelines though women is not a category, both seats should be avoided to be given to women is what is depicted in the aforesaid clause and such depiction is hit with the condition that it should be as far as possible avoided. The working out of reservation insofar as it pertains to Sakaleshpur Taluk is concerned is justified by the State on the

¶67

¶68

ground that reservation is worked out in terms of the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16-01-2021.

¶69

The justification for the said reservation reads as follows:

¶70

“6. The respondents further submit that while fixing the reservation for the post of Vice-President in the first place Scheduled Caste was taking up while look into the provision reservation is given for various Gram Panchayats. In the same, Byakaravalli, Kyamanahalli, Bage, Devaladakere, Biradahalli, Igooru was directly selected by the computer for Scheduled Caste category. As three seats had to be reserved under horizontal reservation to Women in Scheduled Caste category, Devaladakere and Bage Gram Panchayats are selected directly by the computer. Further, Byakaravalli, Kyamanahalli both the Panchayats had equal number of seats, in both Panchayats Kyamanahalli was selected for Scheduled Caste Women and said selection was done without any objections from any Gram Panchayat members in the meeting.

¶71

7. The respondnetrs submit that Kyamanahalli stands in Sl.No.5 in descending order of General and Sl.No.7 in descending order of Scheduled Caste. As the proceedings speak the allotment has been done as per the guidelines of the Election Commission and as lottery was chosen for selecting the Presidents reservation, there is no Women intervention. Hence, the Women category and General has been selected.”

¶72

The afore-quoted statement made in the objections would clearly

¶73

indicate that insofar as it concerns Kyamanahalli it was at Sl.No.5 in the descending order of General Category and Sl.No.7 in the descending order of Scheduled Caste category. In terms of

¶74

¶75

the guidelines the reservation was chosen by draw of lots or lottery and it is in terms of that draw of lots the reservation is rendered to General (Woman) and Scheduled Caste (Woman); General (Woman) for the reason that Kyamanahalli stood at Sl.No.5 in the descending order and Scheduled Caste (Woman) stood at Sl.No.7 in the descending order. The proceedings insofar as it pertains to drawing up of General Category candidates are as follows:

¶76

"¸ÁªiÁ£À å ¥À æªÀ UÀ ðPÀ Ì ¤UÉ ¢ PÀ ÄjvÀ Ä (À General)

¶77

(C) «ÄÃ¸À¯Áw ¤UÀ¢ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÀA©ü¹, ¸ÁªiÁ£À å ¥À æªÀ UÀ ðPÀ Ì É «ÄÃ¸À¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉwÛPÉÆ¼Àî¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. »A¢£À «ÄÃ¸À¯Áw «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆæeÉPÀÖgï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÉgÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ F CªÀ¢üUÉ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ

¶78

¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.

¶79

1. ºÁ£À¨Á¼ÀÄ	2. ªÀÄ¼À°	3. ºÉ§â¸Á¯É
4. PÁåªÀÄ£ÀºÀ½î	5. ¨É¼ÀUÉÆÃqÀÄ	6. ¨ÁUÉ
7. ºÉUÀÎzÉÝ	8. ZÀAUÀrÃºÀ½î	9. AiÀÄ¸À¼ÀÆgÀÄ
10. D£ÉÃªÀÄºÀ¯ï	11. ªÀ¼À®ºÀ½î	12.LUÀÆgÀÄ
13. ºÉÆAUÀqÀºÀ¼Àî

¶80

F ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwUÀ½UÉ «ÄÃ¸À¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."

¶81

The checklist that was looked into by the State while making reservation insofar as it pertains to Kyamanahalli is as follows:

¶82

¶83

GP Members
1993 2000 2000- 2005- I 2005- 2010- I 2010- 2015
Name - I II II II
(Kan) SC ST BCM- BCM- GEN
Name A B
(Eng) total total total total total Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres
female female female female female VP VP VP VP VP VP VP VP
PÁåªÀÄ£À 5 1 0 0 7 CAT- A SC GEN CAT- A GEN GEN SC GEN
ºÀ½î FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE
Kya 3 1 0 0 3 SC CAT- CAT- B GEN SC CAT- A GEN GEN
mana A FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE
halli

¶84

A perusal at the afore-quoted reservation, at no point in time

¶85

both the posts have been reserved for Women of different category. It is due to working out of reservation as is justified in the statement of objections which is an acceptable plausible explanation the reservation is rendered both in favour of Women.

¶86

As observed hereinabove, a single Gram Panchayat

¶87

cannot be taken as a unit for the purpose of working out reservation. The working out of reservation in the manner depicted in the guidelines has resulted in repetition of Women in both the categories which the guidelines itself envisages of

¶88

¶89

sometime possibility and is, therefore, directed that as far as possible it should be avoided.

¶90

Reference being made to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench answering the identical question in the case of

¶91

YASHAVANTHA V.SHETTY AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ –– in the circumstances is apposite. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court interpreting the provisions of the Act has held as follows:-

¶92

"2. Mr.S.Rajashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the case of Bhimappa –vs- The State of Karnataka, Department of Panchayat Raj and others ( ILR 2007 Kar 3881) in order to buttress his plea that the idea behind fixing a shorter term for the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha as compared to the duration of the term of the members is to provide opportunities not only to different members to contest for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, but also to provide opportunities to members belonging to different categories to contest. The intention is to rotate opportunities to different reserved categories to ensure that at the grassroot level, the power is shared by all sections, so that all sections of society effectively participate in the local self governance. The learned counsel for the

¶93

petitioners has contended that, both according to Section 44 (2)(a) & (b) of the Act, the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha are supposed to be

¶94

1 W.P.No.24271 & 24352 of 2015 decided on 17-06-2015

¶95

¶96

reserved for certain categories on rotation. However, according to the learned counsel, the Notification dated 25.5.2015 does not permit such rotation at the Gram Panchayath level. In order to support his plea, he has taken the example of Gurupur Gram Panchayath. According to the learned counsel, out of the five panchayath elections held in the State, the post of the President has been reserved for general woman and only once the said post has been reserved for OBC-A in the said Gram Panchayat. Therefore, sufficient rotation has not been done in accordance with Section 44(2) of the Act, and for the last four terms, no reservations was fixed according to the roaster system to the Gurupur Gram Panchyat. Therefore, according to him, the Notification dated 25.5.2015 is not in consonance with the sprit and Section 44 (2) of the Act. Hence, the prayer of the petitioners is that the Notification should be quashed and direction should be issued to the respondents to hold election for the post of President and Vice-President of Gurupur Gram Panchayat in accordance with Section 44 of the Act.

¶97

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has contended that the contentions raised by the petitioners are highly misplaced. In fact, the Notification dated 25.5.2015 is, indeed, in consonance with Section 44 of the Act. Explaining the notification, the learned counsel has pointed out that the Election Commission is required to take the entire State as a unit and deal with all the Taluk Panchayaths of the State. It is required to take the percentage of population of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC, and woman and ensure that the said percentage of particular communities is reflected in the Panchayat Raj by reserving extent of seats in the Taluk Panchayats. An elaborate procedure has been laid down by the Notification. Even the intention behind the notification is that every section of the

¶98

¶99

society is given ample opportunity to be represented on the post of President and Vice-President at the grama panchayat level. Therefore, a stray example, that too a misplaced example, would not make the notification an illegal one. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the notification dated 25.5.2015.

¶100

4. Section 44 of the Act is as under :

¶101

44. Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.-

¶102

(1) Every Grama Panchayat shall, within one month from the date of publication of names of elected members under sub-section (8) of section 5 or immediately before the expiry of term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyksha choose two members of the Grama Panchayat to be respectively Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. In the event of occurrence of any vacancy by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise in the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, the Grama Panchayat shall choose another member to be the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha, as the case may be.

¶103

(2) Subject to the general or special order of the State Election Commission, the Deputy Commissioner shall reserve,-

¶104

(a) such number of offices of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Grama Panchayats in the State for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of such offices bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of the offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the

¶105

¶106

State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State:

¶107

(b) such number of offices of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of the Grama Panchayats, which shall as nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in the State for the persons belonging to the Backward Classes:

¶108

Provided that out of the offices reserved under this clause eighty per cent of the total number of such offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category 45 ‘A’ and the remaining twenty per cent of the offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ‘B’:

¶109

Provided further that if no person falling under category ‘A’ is available, the offices reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling under category ‘B’ and Vice versa

¶110

(c) not less than one third of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats in the State from each of the categories which are reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes and of those which are non-reserved, for women;

¶111

Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation to different Grama Panchayats.

¶112

¶113

Explanation.-

¶114

For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principle of rotation for purpose of reservation of offices under this section shall commence from the first election to be held after the commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶115

5. Section 44 (2) clearly reveals that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner is subject to the general or special order of the State Election Commission. Further the decision of reserving the seats for Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is to be taken at the State level and bearing in mind, as nearly as may be, the same proportion as to the total number of offices in the State as the population of the scheduled castes in the State or of the scheduled tribes in the State. It further stipulates that such number of offices of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of the grama panchayat shall be as nearly as may be one-third of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in the state for the persons belonging to backward classes. Thus, obviously according to the said provision, the State is to be taken as a single unit and one has to deal with the reservation for the specific communities vis-à-vis their representation in the total population of the State. Section 44 (2) of the Act has been reproduced in the notification in para-3 and para-4.

¶116

6. The notification further goes on to lay down the procedure for reserving the Taluk Panchayat for different communities mentioned above. Item No.9 (3) clearly states that the Deputy Commissioner shall fix the reservation talukawise to various categories and woman and general category to the post of President and Vice-President in the

¶117

¶118

manner prescribed. Thus, the reservation has to be done talukawise and not grama panchayatwise."

¶119

Therefore, it is for the State to take such care at least in future to bear in mind the previous reservation made for Kyamanahalli Gram Panchayat and grievance of Men of General Category as vented out in the petition.

¶120

Wherefore, on consideration of the afore-quoted facts, the policy of reservation and its depiction in the guidelines and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) what would unmistakably emerge is that the question of legal validity of a notification on a single example is too shallow a basis to interfere with the action of the State, for “a single

¶121

swallow does not make a summer”.

¶122

In the result, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit is

¶123

dismissed and the interim order granted stands dissolved.

¶124

Sd/JUDGE

¶125

bkp CT:MJ

Sri Sachin N G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sachin N G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Swapna N Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Bk Panduranga Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Pattada Sri Guru Nanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu Vs State of Karnataka by

Karnataka Police Employees House Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs State Rep. by Secretary

Aseem Naghman Vs the Secretary, Government of Karnataka