Dismissed

Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2008CWP/11121/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the election of Satnam Kaur as Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). The petitioner contested that she was ineligible as she was elected from a Women-reserved zone rather than a SC (Woman)-reserved zone. The court held that the law does not differentiate between election sources for SC/Women category candidates.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the resolution dated 23.6.2008 declaring respondent No.7 as Chairman is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Karnail Kaur Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 03, 2008

Karnail Kaur

.....PETITIONER

Versus

The State of Punjab and others

¶8

....RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Arvind Mittal, Addl.A.G.,Punjab for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶12

Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶13

Mr.A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

¶14

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

Petitioner Karnail Kaur has filed this petition for quashing the Resolution dated 23.6.2008 vide which Satnam Kaur-respondent No.7 has been elected as Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶16

The Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana consists of 15 Zones from where one Member for each Zone was elected as per the reservation made by the government as depicted in Annexure P-1. The petitioner was representing Jodhpur Zone which was reserved for Scheduled Caste

¶17

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008 -2-

¶18

(Woman).

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the office of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman) as per the notification dated 14.05.2008 issued by the State Government. All the 15 Members of the Panchayat Samiti, who were from different Zones, were to elect the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. It is further the case of the petitioner that Smt.Satnam Kaur-respondent No.7 was not eligible to contest the election for the office of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana because she was declared elected as Member from Himmatpura Zone, which was reserved for Woman and not for Scheduled Caste (Woman) category. It is the case of the petitioner that only a Member of the Zone, who has been elected against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (Woman), can contest the election for the office of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana. According to the petitioner, only two Members, who were coming from two zones, namely, Jodhpur and Kandipur, were eligible to contest the election as both the Zones were reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman) and from those two Zones, there are only two women of Scheduled Caste category, including the petitioner, who are the Members of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana.

¶20

In nutshell, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that only those Members of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana, who have been elected from Jodhpur and Kandipur Zones, which were reserved for the category of Scheduled Caste (Woman), were eligible to contest the election for the office of Chairman, but in the meeting held on 23.6.2008, respondent No.7, who became Member of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana

¶21

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008 -3-

¶22

from Himmatpura Zone, which was reserved for Woman, has been wrongly elected as Chairman.

¶23

In this petition, the question arises for consideration is whether respondent No.7 can contest the election for the office of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman), irrespective of the fact that she was elected as Member of the Panchayat Samiti from Himmatpura Zone, which was reserved for Woman category.

¶24

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the plea taken by the petitioner is not tenable and is contrary to the provisions of Article 243T of the Constitution of India, Section 106 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 4 of the Punjab Reservation for the Offices of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats and Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Rules, 1994. These provisions are reproduced below for ready reference:-

¶25

“243T. Reservation of seats.-(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of Scheduled Castes in the municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in that municipal area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a municipality.

¶26

(2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes.

¶27

(3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and

¶28

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008 -4-

¶29

the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a municipality.

¶30

(4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the municipalities shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and women in such manner as the legislature of a state, may by law, provide:

¶31

(5) The reservation of seats under clause 1 and 2 and the reservations of offices of Chairpersons (Other than the reservation for women) under clause 4 shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in article 334.

¶32

(6) Nothing in this part shall prevent the legislature of a state from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality or office of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour of Backward Class of citizens.”

¶33

“Section 106. Reservation for the offices of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Panchayat Samitis. There shall be reservation for the offices of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen, in the manner prescribed by the State Government-

¶34

(a) such number of offices of Chairmen and ViceChairmen of Panchayat Samitis in the district for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the number of such offices bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of offices in the district as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the district bears to the total population of the district and such offices shall be allotted by rotation;

¶35

(b) not less than one-third of the total number of offices of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Panchayat Samitis in the district, shall be reserved for women and such offices shall be allotted by rotation.”

¶36

“Rule 4. Reservation of Offices of Chairmen and ViceChairmen, of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Sections 106 and (169).- The State Government shall, by

¶37

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008 -5-

¶38

notification in the Official Gazette reserve the offices of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes in the district in the same proportion as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the district bears to the total population of the district and such offices of the Zila Parishads bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State bears to the total population of the State as per last Census in the manner hereinafter specified. Reservation for these offices shall be made by rotation:-

¶39

(i) Not less than one third of the total number of offices reserved for Scheduled Castes will be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

¶40

(ii) The remaining offices reserved for Scheduled Castes will be available to the Scheduled Castes irrespective of the sex.”

¶41

From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste category is to be elected for the office of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti if the said office is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). Nowhere in the aforesaid provisions, it has been provided that only a Member of the Zone, who has been elected against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (Woman), is to be elected for the office of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, which is reserved for the category of Scheduled Caste (Woman). A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kasambhai F.Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D.Rajput and others, 1998(2) PLR 611, wherein it was held as under:-

¶42

“The Act and the Rules provide for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and women. No

¶43

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008 -6-

¶44

reservation or classification is made ward-wise. To put it differently all members of the Scheduled Castes, for example, will be regarded as belonging to one class irrespective of the fact whether they had been elected to a reserved seat or to a general seat. Similar is the position with regard to the Backward Classes, Scheduled Tribes and women. The law does not contemplate or provide for any further subclassification of the type which has been suggested by the respondents. Just as all members of the municipality, irrespective of the fact whether they had been elected to a reserved seat or not, are eligible for election to the post of the President when it falls in the general category, similarly when as per the roster the President is to be one who, say, belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste then all members of the municipality who are Scheduled Caste, irrespective of the seat to which they had been elected, would be eligible to stand for election. Neither the Act nor the rules stipulate that it is only such a member who has been elected to the reserved seat who would be eligible to stand for election to the post of President when it is the turn of that category of candidate to become the President of the municipality.”

¶45

This court in C.W.P. No.14300 of 2008, titled as “Gurmit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others”, decided on August 26, 2008, while considering the question “whether a Panch, who is a woman, belonging to Scheduled Caste, can contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman), irrespective of the fact that she was elected as Panch of the Gram Panchayat against the reserved seat of General Category”, has held that such a woman is fully eligible to contest the election for the office of Sarpanch, which is reserved for woman, being a woman, and neither under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 nor under the rules made thereunder, there is any bar that such a woman,

¶46

C.W.P. No.11121 of 2008 -7-

¶47

would not be eligible to contest the election for the office of Sarpanch, reserved for woman.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that respondent No.7, who undisputedly belongs to Scheduled Caste category and had duly produced the certificate of Scheduled Caste at the time of election, was fully eligible to contest the election for the office of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste(Woman), irrespective of the fact that she became Member of said Panchayat Samiti from the Zone, which was reserved for Woman. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the Resolution dated 23.6.2008 vide which respondent No.7 was declared elected as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti.

¶49

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶50

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 03, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE

Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljinder Kaur Vs the Election Tribunal Cum D.C.Patiala & Ors.

Gurbinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Milkha Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rami Saini Vs State of Punjab and Ors.