The principle of reservation must be adhered to in appointing an officiating Gram Pradhan, and the consent of Gram Panchayat members is essential for nominations.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri. Anurag Shukla Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Aman Dwivedi Advocate, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 26.06.2025, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur, whereby the District Panchayat Raj Officer has nominated the opposite party No. 4 to perform the duties of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Sikauha, Development Block Reusa, District Sitapur until further orders, or until a Pradhan is appointed, as the post had fallen vacant consequent to the death of the Village Pradhan Ori Lal on 06.06.2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the post of Gram Pradhan in question is reserved for persons belonging to the Other Backward Class Category whereas the opposite party No. 4 is not a person belonging to that category. The petitioner is a member of the Gram Panchayat and he belongs to the Other Backward Class Category, and he ought to have been nominated as the officiating Gram Pradhan.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the appointment has been made without obtaining the consent of members of the Panchayat. In this regard, he has relied on a judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others: 2017:AHC:70818, wherein this court has held that it is imperative for the District Magistrate to seek opinion of the members of the Gram Panchayat before taking a final decision for nomination of a suitable member to officiate as Gram Pradhan until the vacancy is filled up by a regular election.

5. Shri S.K. Khare, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition on the basis of written instructions dated 24.09.2025 and he has submitted that Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, does not provide that the provision for reservation will be observed even while appointing an officiating Pradhan. Shri Khare has also received supplementary instructions dated 06.10.2025, informing that prior to making the appointment of opposite party No. 4 as officiating Pradhan, the consent of the Village Panchayat Members had not been obtained.

6. Sri. Anurag Shukla, Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 4 has vehemently opposed the Writ Petition and he too has submitted that Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, does not provide that the provision for reservation will be observed even while appointing an officiating Pradhan and that there is no statutory requirement for obtaining consent of the members of gram panchayat before nominating any person to perform the duties of village pradhan in case of any casual vacancy. IN support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Udaivir v. State Election Commission of U.P. /b>.: 2008 SCC OnLine All 2132, Pushpendra Kumar v. State of U.P. , 2010 SCC OnLine All 3140, Shyamu v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine All 1250, Smt. Usha Singh v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur & Ors., 1992 RD 337 = 1992 SC