By the Court.—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the learned single Judge In Writ Petition No. 64313 of 2009, Farida v. State of U.P. and others.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

In Gram Panchayat Shahbazpur Kalan Vijai Rampur, Post Sharif Nagar, Tehsil Thakurdwara, Moradabad, election for the post of Pradhan was held along with the Members wherein one Smt. Parul Chaudhary was elected as Pradhan. However, on account of some subsequent development, Smt. Parul Chaudhary decided to tender her resignation which was accepted by the competent authority on 12.10.2009, giving rise to a substantive vacancy of the office of Pradhan.

3. It may be mentioned here that In the said Gram Panchayat, there is no elected Up-Gram Pradhan. There are eleven elected Members and two nominated Members of the Gram Panchayat. The question arose as to who should be nominated on the post of Gram Pradhan. According to the petitioner Farida, who Is presently arrayed as Respondent No. 5 in the present appeal, as the post of Gram Pradhan in question was reserved for a female category candidate, it was unanimously resolved that she should function as officiating Pradhan of gram Shahbazpur Kalan. The papers were transmitted to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, who forwarded it to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, for doing the needful. However, the District Magistrate over ruled the proposal and on 16.11.2009 nominated the appellant herein on the post of Gram Pradhan which order was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned single Judge relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Udavir v. State Election Commission of U.P. through its Chairman and others, 2009 (106) RD 151, has held that nomination of the Pradhan in such a contingency should be on the basis of the wishes of the Members of Gram Panchayat The order dated 16.11.2009 and the consequential order dated 17.11.2009 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the District Magistrate to take a fresh decision in accordance with law.

4. We have heard Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Udit Chandra appearing for the respondent No. 5.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case as the resignation of the then Gram Pradhan has been accepted, a vacancy arose which has to be filled up under Section 12-H of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, read with Sections 11-B, 11-C and Section 12 of the Act. He also placed reliance upon Rule 60 and 60-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”. According to him in view of sub-Section 3-A of Section 12 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority has the power to appoint an Administrative Committee if he comes to the conclusion that it is not practicable to hold an election to constitute a Gram Panchayat before the expiry of his tenure. He, thus, submitted that the Prescribed Authority which in the present case is the District Magistrate, was perfectly justified in nominating the present appellant on the post of Gram Pradhan for the remainder period and the teamed single Judge has erred in law in holding otherwise.

6. We have perused the provisions of Sections 11-B, 11-C, 12 and 12-H of the Act and Rules 60 and 60-A of the Rules referred to by the learned counsel for the Appellant. We find that Section 12-H deals with a contingency where the vacancy in the office of Pradhan or a Member of Gram Panchayat arises by reason of his death, removal, resignation etc. In such eventuality if the term remains due for more than 6 months, then the vacancy has to be filled up as provided in Sections 11-B, 11-C or 12 as the case may be. The proviso to Section 12-A provides that if the residue of the term is less than 6 months, the vacancy need not be filled under tha