Petitioner challenged the election of Respondent No.4 as Sarpanch for a reserved women seat, arguing only a woman elected from the general women category was eligible. The Court held all elected women are eligible regardless of their original casting seat.
Writ petition dismissed as there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 13738 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 05.08.2008
Sukhjit Kaur
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner contested the election of Gram Panchayat of Village Bhagthala Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot, against the reserved category of General Women. Respondent No.4 Jaspreet Kaur contested the said election against the reserved seat of Scheduled Caste women. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 along with other persons were declared elected for the office of Panch and result was duly notified. The office of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat of Village Bhagthala Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot was reserved for women. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 contested the said election and respondent No.4 was declared elected as Sarpanch.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 could
CWP No. 13738 of 2008
-2-
not have been allowed to contest the election of Sarpanch in women category, because she had fought election for Panch against the reserved seat of Scheduled Caste women. He further contends that out of the total 7 Panches, petitioner is the only candidate, who has contested and won the election of Panch against the category of general women and as such, only she was eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch, which has been reserved for women.
In our opinion, contention of counsel for the petitioner is without any force. Section 12 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 3 of the Punjab Reservation for the Offices of Sarpanches of gram Panchayats and Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Rules, 1994 provides for reservation of seats for the offices of Sarpanches. Under the said provisions, a notification dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) was issued, reserving the office of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat, village Bhagthala Kalan for women category. Respondent No.4 was elected to the office of Panch against the reserved seat of Scheduled Caste women. In our opinion, all the women, who have been elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat, village Bhagthala Kalan, either from the reserved category or from general category are eligible to contest the election of the office of Sarpanch, which has been reserved for women.
The contention of the petitioner is that since the office of Sarpanch has been reserved for general women, therefore, only the Panch, who has been elected as Panch against the category of general women is
CWP No. 13738 of 2008
-3-
eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch. In our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. The Government of Punjab, vide a Memo dated 27.5.2008 has already issued a clarification to the effect that the Panches belonging directly to reserved category, can contest the elections for other categories viz. Panch belonging to Scheduled Caste women category can contest the election for scheduled caste, women category and general category. Similarly, the Panch of Scheduled Caste category can contest the election of Sarpanch for General category and General Women Panch can contest the election against the General category.
A similar question has also been answered by the Supreme Court in Kasambhai F. Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rajput and others, 1998 (2) PLR 611, where the question was whether a candidate who belongs to a Backward Class, but has been elected from an unreserved seat, could stand for election for the post of President of the Municipality which was reserved for a Backward Class candidate or whether the candidate for the post could only be a person who was elected to the Municipality from a seat which was reserved for the Backward Class. The Supreme Court, while answering the said question, observed that all the 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 the members of the Municipality who are Scheduled Caste,
CWP No. 13738 of 2008 -4-
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, 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.
Thus, in our opinion, respondent No.4, though she was elected to the office of Panch against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste women, being a woman, was fully eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch, which is reserved for women. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
August 05, 2008 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ndj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a woman elected as a Panch from a reserved seat of Scheduled Caste women is eligible to contest the election for Sarpanch reserved for the women category as a whole.
Whether eligibility for the Sarpanch post is restricted only to members elected from the specific category matching the reservation roster.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kasambhai F. Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rajput and othersApplied¶23
Kasambhai F. Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rajput and others, 1998 (2) PLR 611
Sukhjit Kaur
State of Punjab and others
Satish Kumar Mittal
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
