A notification issued by the State Government to include a community in the backward class cannot be given retrospective operation to relate back to the date of an election, unless it is expressly stated in the notification that it is intended to have retrospective effect. A person who has committed a grave wrong by filing a forged certificate to contest an election is not entitled to the equitable relief available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) THE core question for consideration and determination involved in the present writ petition is whether a notification made by the State Government to declare a particular community as a backward class would have retrospective operation to relate back to the date of election of the petitioner who was elected as Pradhan against reserved seat of Gram Panchayat, Jangal Ahmad ali Shah Vikas Khand Chargawan, Tahsil Sadar, district Gorakhpur. This controversy has come up before this Court in the context of the following facts.

( 2 ) THE seat of Pradhan for Gram Panchayat Jangal Ahmad Ali Shah Vikas Khand Chargawan. Tahsil Sadar, district Gorakhpur, was reserved for backward class male candidate. The election was scheduled to be held for the said post on 7. 4. 1995 under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh panchayat Raj Act. 1947. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner filed his nomination along with a certificate wherein he was indicated as belonging to Tamoli community of backward class. His nomination was accepted as backward class candidate and ultimately he was declared elected. Subsequently, it transpired that the petitioner did not belong to Tamoli caste but was a Barai which at the relevant time did not fall within the ambit of backward class and that since the petitioner was not Tamoli by caste, the certificate filed by him was fictitious. The crux of the matter was that the petitioner on the relevant date was not a member of the backward class and consequently, his election against the reserved seat of backward class was held to be bad in law in the Election Petition No. 7 of 1995 under Section 12c of the Act instituted by Madho Prasad, respondent No. 4. The Prescribed authority allowed the election petition by order dated 27. 11. 1998. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision application under Section 12c [6) of the Act before the District judge. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 27. 11. 1998 was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh in the light of the subsequent Government notification dated 6. 9. 1995. The Prescribed Authority again allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner by its order dated 9. 2. 1999. Against this order, the present petitioner filed a revision No. 2 of 1996 under Section 12c (6) of the Act, which has been dismissed on 20. 3. 1999. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India with the prayer that the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as revisional court be set aside and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with his functioning as Pradhan of the Gram panchayat.

( 3 ) THE sheet anchor of the case of the petitioner is that subsequent to his election, the State government has issued a notification dated 6. 9. 1995, a copy of which is filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby Barai and Chaurasia have also been included in Tamoli community as belonging to the backward class. The stand taken by the petitioner is that even though the notification was made after the declaration of the result of the petitioner, it shall relate back to the date when the process of election commenced as the exercise for including Barai in Tamoli community was going on and survey was being conducted,

( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 Madho Prasad, the election petitioner. It is alleged that on the date on which the petitioner had filed his nomination and was declared as elected to the office of Pradhan, he did not belong to the backward class that the notification relied upon by the petitioner cannot be given retrospective operation and that since the petitioner had filed a fictitious certificate on the basis of which he became a candidate for election to the office of Pradhan, though otherwise he was n