4 21.12.2011 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 2. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. His earlier writ petition being W.P.(C)No.19227 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court on 24.8.2011 remitting the matter to the Collector, Kendrapara, opposite party no.2, for reconsideration of the reservation for the seat made in favour of the B.C(W). After reconsideration, opposite party no.2 has reserved the office of the Chairman of Aul Panchayat Samiti for Women instead of B.C(W). Thereafter the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing such reservation. The petitioner basically challenges the reservation of the seat for Women category. It is not disputed that in 1997 election it was kept as unreserved. In 2002, the same was reserved for Scheduled Caste category and for 2012 the same has been reserved for Women category. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rotation should also be fixed for Women category and once it is reserved for B.C(W), in 2007 again the same should not have been reserved for Women category instead it should have been kept as unreserved category. Sub-section (3-a) of Section 16 of the Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 provides for reservation of the offices of the Chairman in Smitis. It has been amended in the year 2001. 4. Clause (1) of sub-section (3-a) of Section 16 provides that offices of Chairman in Samitis shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of W.P.(C) N0.28769 of 2011 offices so reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices as the population of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes respectively in the State bears to the total population of the State. Provided that in the Scheduled Areas, offices of the Chairman of all the Samitis shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 5. Amended Clause (ii) of sub-section (3-a) of Section 16 provides that as nearly as may be, but not less than one half of the total number of offices of Chairmen reserved under Clause (i) shall be reserved for Women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. Clause (ii-a) provides that as nearly as may, twenty-seven percentum of the offices of Chairmen in Samitis shall also be reserved in favour of backward class of citizens as referred to in Clause (6) of Article 243-D of the Constitution. Clause (ii-b) provides that as nearly as may be, one half of the total number of office of Chairman reserved under clause (ii-a) shall be reserved for women belonging to the backward class of citizens. Clause (ii-c) provides that as nearly as may be, but not less than one half (including the number of offices reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Class of Citizens) of the total number of offices of Chairmen in Samitis shall be reserved for Women. 6. Thus, applying this principle to the case in hand, it 2 is seen that in the district of Kendrapara there are all total nine Panchayat Samitis. So that there are nine offices of the Chairmen of the Panchayat Samitis for which election has to be held. Out of this nine Panchayat Samitis, two have been reserved for Scheduled Castes including one for Scheduled Caste Women, two have been reserved for Backward Class of Citizens including one for B.C.C. women. Out of the remaining five, three have been reserved for Women and two have been kept unreserved. The petitioner has grievance regarding this. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since only half of the seats to be kept for Women in all categories, the offices of all Aul Chairman Panchayat Samitis should be kept unreserved. The argument of the petitioner is erroneous in view of the fact that out of total nine constituency, at least 50% i.e. 4.5 has to be reserved for women category. Since half of the seats reserved for women category the next full number has to be taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of U.P. and another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others; AIR 2005 SC 658, has held that if the fraction is more 0.5, the next whole number will be calculated and, therefore, for 4.5 the next whole number i.e., 5 has to be calculated. 8. Viewed from another angle, it is also seen that the intention of the Legislature is to reserve at lest 50%, but not less than the same. In other words, the reservation for women category may be more than 50%, but in no case it shall be less than 50%. It is clear from the expression “but not less than one half”. 3 9. Applying this principle to the case in hand that out of nine constituencies, five have been reserved for Women category and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by opposite party no.2. Moreover, while arranging the General Category seats in alphabetical order, Aul constituency comes at first and, hence, the same has to be reserved for the General Women category. In this view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. .………………… S.K.Mishra,J. 4 5