IMPORTANT POINT
A valid Caste Certificate from the state of contest is essential for candidates claiming SC/ST status in elections.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 13-3-2023, whereby election petition filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed; and the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jagoli, Tehsil and District Neemuch (M.P.) has been aside.

2. The election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jagoli, Tehsil and District Neemuch (M.P.) was held on 25-6-2022 in which the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 contested for the post of Sarpanch. Admittedly, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for a candidate of Scheduled Caste (SC) Category. The petitioner submitted a nomination form as a SC Candidate, as he is claiming himself to be a ‘Balai’, which is a Scheduled Caste in Madhya Pradesh as well as in State of Rajasthan. In the election, the petitioner secured 362 votes and the election petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) secured 235 votes; and accordingly, the petitioner was declared elected.

3. Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (herein after referred to as Panchayat Act, 1993) along with Rules 3.21 and 23 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

4. The Specified Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Neemuch (Respondent No. 1) has held that the petitioner was born in Village Arar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) and migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh and he is not having a Caste Certificate of Scheduled Caste issued by the Competent Authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, he is not entitled to hold the post of Sarpanch; and accordingly, the election of the petitioner has been set aside. Hence, this petition before this Court.

5. Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Caste of ‘Balai’ comes under the list of SC in the State of Madhya Pradesh also. His all family members are having Caste Certificate. The petitioner also applied for issuance of Caste Certificate, but the same has been rejected, against which, he filed an appeal, which is still pending.

6. It is not in dispute that he belongs to ‘Balai’ Community, therefore, he was qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch and as his name is included in the voter list of Gram Panchayat and he is fulfilling all the qualifications for the post of Sarpanch. He is also not incurring any disqualification as prescribed under section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, his election has wrongly been set aside.

7. It is further submitted that he was not given any opportunity to lead evidence, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside; and the matter be remanded back to the Specified Officer (respondent No. 1).

8. Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel further submits that the learned Specified Officer has placed reliance on a circular dated 6-8-1984 issued by the Government of India, which applies to the migrants, who are aspirant to take the benefits out of their Caste of their original State. For contesting the election, the petitioner is not taking any benefit by virtue of his Caste of ‘Balai’ in the State of Rajasthan. He has been elected by the voters, as he secured the highest votes, therefore, the person or a resident, who has received the highest votes, is entitled to continue as Sarpanch, which cannot be terms as a benefit taken by him. Even otherwise, he submits that the circular applies for securing other benefits like scholarship, admission, appointment, promotion in reserved category.

9. In support of his contention, Shri Phadke has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Aruna vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No(s). 4457-4458 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (Civil No(s). 10675-10676 of 2020] dated 27-7-2021.

10. Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.