Proper adherence to statutory reservation rules was upheld in the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

1. This Writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notification dated 24.05.2019 issued by the fifth respondent insofar as it relates to reserving Ward No.1 at Modakurichi, Erode Town Panchayat, for Schedule Caste candidates.

2. The leaned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the R.4 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations (Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996 submitted that the respondents have not followed these Rules strictly and they went ahead reserving Ward No.1 for Schedule Caste candidates.

3. In order to substantiate the said submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the Population Census as reflected in the Official Website and submitted that Ward No.6 and Ward No.4 had the highest percentage of Schedule Caste population and Ward No.1 only comes in the third place and therefore the respondents ought not to have reserved Ward No.1 towards Schedule Caste category.

4. Per contra, Mr. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the population figures that is relied upon by the petitioner is not correct and the correct population is arrived after delimitation and the same is found at page No.173 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner.

5. The learned Government pleader submitted that the total reservation has been arrived at by the Executive officer of Modakurichi Town Panchayat, Erode, based on the year, 2011 Census, after delimitation and it was found that the totally 3 wards will have to be reserved for the Schedule Caste candidates. Out of the same, two wards will have to be reserved for Schedule Caste women and one ward for Schedule Caste General.

6. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that Ward No.9 and Ward No.5 had the highest percentage both in terms of Schedule Caste general as well as Schedule Caste women and Ward No.1 stood 3rd in the descending order. Learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ward No.9 had 52.78% of Schedule Caste women candidates and Ward No.5 had 50.48% of Schedule Caste women candidates and Ward No.1 had 50.25% of Schedule Caste women candidates. The learned counsel, therefore submitted that Ward No.9 and Ward No.5 were allotted for Schedule Caste women and Ward No.1 was allotted for Schedule Caste General. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire exercise was carried out strictly in accordance with R.4 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations (Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996 and prayed for dismissal of the Writ petition.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on the either sides and the materials available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the 2011 census, after delimitation. The manner in which the number of seats was allotted for Schedule Caste candidates is found in the check list that has been filed at page no.172 of the typed set of papers. It is seen from the check list that the number of Wards that will be reserved for Schedule Caste candidates was identified as three wards. Out of the three seats, two seats must be allotted for Schedule Caste women candidates and one seat must allotted for Schedule Caste General candidates. The manner in which these allotments should be made, can be found under R.4 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations (Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996. The said rule is extracted hereunder: -
"4. Reservation of seats in Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations: -
(1) For the purpose of reservation of pe