In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1,2 and 4, it has been stated that the aforesaid Corrigendum was issued in order to bring the reservation in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') read with Rule 7 of the Punjab Reservation for the Offices of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats and Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules, 1994. It has been stated in the written statement that as per Rule 7 of the said Rules, if a particular office remains reserved during two consecutive elections, the same will as far as possible, be kept for general category candidate for the third election by shifting the reserved point to the next lower point on the principle of rotation. In the written statement, it has been stated that in the years 1998 and 2003, the office of Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat Mannawala Khurd was reserved for Scheduled Caste, therefore, this time the office of Sarpanch of this village was to be allotted for General Category. But when by mistake the office was third time reserved for Scheduled Caste, then on a representation received in this regard, the aforesaid Corrigendum was issued and the reservation of the office of Sarpanch was changed from Scheduled Caste to General Category in view of the aforesaid Rules. This factual position has not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner.
