1997 Supreme(Bom) 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
A.P. Shah B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.
Parwatibai w/o Madhavrao Molddewad .....
Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ...... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 846 of 1997, decided on 30-4-1997.
Advocates appeared :
M.V. Deshpande, for the petitioner.
S.K. Kadam, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
S.B. Talekar, for respondent No. 4.

Headnote:Article 243-T-Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Klagar Panchayats (President Election Rules, 1981-Reservation of President of Election Council (Municipal) Reservation of OBC women to the post-ward reserved for general woman category-Women of OBC category not allowed to contest.- The concerned election member of the Municipal Council must have got election on the seat available to the category for which reservation has been mane for presidents posts. The concept of rotation clearly implies that for contesting the post of president by rotation, reservation is made for members elected from a particular category and only those members can contest for president-ship admittedly as far as the petitioner is concerned, she has been elected from ward which was reserved for the Backward Class Women. Therefore, in that category she is the sole candidates. So far as the respondent is concerned even though the she claims to belong to the other backward Class, she was not elected on a seat reserved for other Backward Class women but on a seat reserved for general category of women. It cannot be disputed that in that ward, there were other contesting women candidates, not belonging to Backward Class, but also belonging to general category. Therefore, the respondent is a member who is elected on the seat earmarked for the general category of women. It cannot be disputed that in that ward, there were other contesting women candidates, not belonging to Backward Class but also belonging to general category. Therefore, the respondent is a member who is elected on the seat earmarked for the general category of women she cannot be said to be a member elected on a seat reserved for the Backward Class women. Thus the respondent was ineligible to contest the election of the President of Municipal Council. Which has reserved for the category of other Backward Class women.

       Sections 10 and 51-AMaharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (President Election) Rules, 1981, Rule 2(A)-Constitution of India, Article 243-T(6)-Election to OBC seat-Eligibility-Rotational reservation-OBC woman candidate elected an general category basis-Seeking to contest for OBC post-Rotationally reserved for post of President-Held-Non OBC member not eligible for the reserved post even if, belonging to OBC- The concept of rotation clearly implies that for contesting the post of Presidents by rotation, reservation is made for members elected from a particular category and only those members can contest for President-ship. Admittedly, as far as the petitioner is concerned, she has been elected from ward No. 1 which was reserved for the Other Backward Class women. Therefore, in that category, she is the sale candidate. So far as the respondent No.4 is concerned even though she claims to belong to the Other Backward Class, she was not elected on a seat reserved for Other Backward Class women, but, on a seat reserved for general category of women from ward No. 13. It cannot be disputed that in that ward, there were other contesting women candidates, not belonging to Backward Class, but, also belonging to general category. Therefore, the respondent No.4 is a member who is elected on the seat earmarked for the general category of women she cannot be said to be a member elected on a seat reserved for Backward Class women. In ward No.1 from where the petitioner contested, the general category women could not have contested and only the Other Backward Class category could have contested and, therefore, she cannot be held to be belonging to category of other Backward Class women to which the petitioner belongs. Consequently both of them cannot be treated as belonging to same category of seats on which they have got elected. It is thus, clearly seen that the respondent No, 4 was ineligible to contest the election of the President of Mukhed Municpal Council.

       Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (President Election) Rules, 1981

       1749 -Rule 2(a)-Reservation in election of President of Municipal Council-Such post reserved for category of other backward class women-Woman elected from ward reserved for general women category -Held, such woman cannot contest election though she belongs to other backward class.- There is reservation provided for different category of classes like the category of Scheduled Castes, the category of Scheduled Tribes, the category of women and the category of backward classes. It is clearly seen that the category of backward classes has nothing to do with the castes. Similarly, the category of women is also separately indicated. Thus, these categories have no nexus with th~ castes. Thus, the thrust of the rule is that the office of the President in the Municipal Councils must go by rotation to members belonging to specified categories. By necessary implication the concerned elected member of the Municipal Council must have got elected on the seat available to the category for which reservation has been made for Presidents posts. The concept of rotation clearly implies that for contesting the post of President by rotation, reservation is made for member elected from a particular category and only those members can contest for Presidentship. Admittedly, as far as the petitioner is concerned, she has been elected from ward No.1 which was reserved for the Other Backward Class women. Therefore, in that category she is the sole candidate. So far as the respondent No.4 is concerned, even though she claims to belong to the Other Backward Class, she was not elected on a seat reserved for Other Backward Class women, but, on a seat reserved for general category of women from ward No. 13. It cannot be disputed that in that ward, there were other contesting women candidates, not belonging to Backward Class, but, also belonging to general category. Therefore, the respondent No.4 is a member who is elected on the seat earmarked for the general category of women, she cannot be said to be a member elected on a seat reserved for Backward Class women. In ward No.1 from where the petitioner contested, the general category women could not have contested and only the other Backward Class category could have contested and, therefore, she cannot be held to be belonging to category of Other Backward Class women to which the petitioner belongs (sic). Consequently both of them cannot be treated as belonging to same category of seats on which they have got elected. It is thus, clearly seen that the respondent No.4 was ineligible to contest the election of the President of Mukhad Municipal Council.

       Rule 2(a)-See Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Act, 1965, Sections 10 and 51-A.