The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation for the post of Sarpanch was rightly determined by drawing lots from the members belonging to Scheduled Castes category and Backward Class of citizens, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

P. C.

In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the reservation of the post of Sarpanch for candidates from Backward Class of citizens at Gram Panchayat, Isapur by draw of lots. Further challenge is also raised to the Notification dated 26.11.2021 by which the reservation for the post of Sarpanch from the Scheduled Tribes (women) category has been modified to Backward Class of citizens.

3. The petitioner no.1 is an elected member of Gram Panchayat, Isapur having contested the said elections from general female category. The petitioner no.2 is also an elected member of the Gram Panchayat from the Scheduled Tribes (female) category while the petitioner no.3 has been elected to the Gram Panchayat from the Backward Class of citizens (female) category. The Gram Panchayat consists of thirteen members and the post of Sarpanch was reserved for members from Scheduled Tribes (women) category. No candidate however was available at Gram Panchayat, Isapur who could fill in the post of Sarpanch from that category. The Collector therefore by his communication dated 26.10.2021 directed that the reservation for the post of Sarpanch be determined by drawing lots as per provisions of Rule 2A(4-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964). This was to be done by following the provisions of Section 30 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the Act of 1959). Accordingly a notice was issued by the Tahsildar convening a meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat on 15.11.2021. In the meeting held on that date and after following the procedure prescribed by Rule 2A(4-A) of the Rules of 1964 after draw of lots amongst candidates from the Scheduled Castes Category and the Backward Class of citizens, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for Backward Class of citizens. The petitioners on 24.11.2021 made a representation in that regard to the Collector. On 26.11.2021 the change in the reservation as was earlier declared was effected. Thus the reservation of the post of Sarpanch for candidates from the Backward Class of citizens is challenged in this writ petition.

4. Shri V. N. Patre, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that reservation of the post of Sarpanch for members from Backward Class of citizens was contrary to Rule 2A(4-A) of the Rules of 1964 as well as Section 30 of the Act of 1959. Inviting attention to relevant provisions, it was submitted that there ought to be 50% reservation of the post of Sarpanch in every district. If however no woman candidate from a particular reserved category was available, the post in question ought to be reserved for woman from other reserved categories by which 50% reservation as prescribed would be maintained. Instead of modifying the reservation in favour of woman from the other reserved categories, the post of Sarpanch has been reserved not specifically for women but for members from the Backward Class of citizens. This has resulted in violation of the spirit behind prescribing 50% reservation for women candidates. Hence the Resolution dated 15.11.2021 as well as the Notification dated 26.11.2021 were liable to be set aside.

5. Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4 relied upon the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that the draw of lots was conducted as prescribed by Rule 2-A (4A) of the Rules of 1964. Therein the reservation as prescribed under Section 30 of the Act of 1959 was to be considered. By following these provisions the lots were drawn from amongst Scheduled Castes and Backward Class of citizens. The petitioners did not raise any objection in that regard on 15.11.2021. A similar procedure was followed in about seven Gram Panchayats and hence there was no illegality committed. Shri K.S.Narwade, learne