IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12011 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Jagga Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Sindhu, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, who is an elected Panch of Gram Panchayat of Village Shaina from the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 14.05.2008 (Annexure P2) vide which the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has been changed from Scheduled Caste to General Category. It is the case of the petitioner that the said change was made against the provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. In the written statement dated 18.08.2008 filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner has converted one seat of Sarpanch of the village from Scheduled Caste to General Category in order to bring the number of reservation in accordance with the population of the Scheduled Castes in Block Shaina. At that time, it was C.W.P. No.12011 of 2008 -2- pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement appears to be wrong because the office of Sarpanch of Village Daraj was also converted from General to Scheduled Caste category by the same notification. In view of the said contradiction, this Court vide order dated September 29, 2008 directed the respondents to file an additional affidavit to explain the aforesaid contradiction. In compliance of the said order, an additional affidavit dated 5.11.2008 has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala in which the position in this regard has been explained as under:- “That the roster for reservation of the post of Sarpanch is required to be prepared block wisel. Block Shaina is comprised of 57 Gram Panchayats. The population of Scheduled Castes in Block Shaina constitutes 29.8% of the total population. The seats for Sarpanch are to be reserved in proportion of SC population in a Block. Inadvertently, 18 posts of Sarpanch were reserved for S.C.s in the block-wise reservation issued vide notification dated 8th May, 2008, copy Annexure P1 to the petition. When this error came to notice, notification no.BNL/PE/DA-433 dated 14 May, 2008 was issued whereby one seat reserved for S.C.s in Gram panchayat Shaina was changed from S.C. category to General category, copy of which has already been filed as Annexure R-2 with the reply. It is clarified that on 14th May, 2008 a notification was first issued showing Shaina as General and Daraj as S.C., a copy of which is filed as Annexure R-3. This notification was replaced by a notification dated 14th May, 2008 with the same number and date, on the same very day. The net position is that the reservation of Gram Panchayat Daraj did not undergo any change and it remained a General seat of Sarpanch. The election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Daraj has been conducted from General category. Thus, as regards Gram Panchayat Daraj the office of Sarpanch continued to remain C.W.P. No.12011 of 2008 -3- General. A copy of the relevant extract of notification No.Pb- G.P./Barnala/2008/3179 dated 14th August, 2008 by which the election of Sarpanch from General category was notified is filed as Annexure R-4 to this affidavit. The change in reservation regarding Gram Panchayat Shaina from S.C. to General was required to be issued with a purpose to keep the number of S.C.s to the extent of their quote, that is 17.” After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the aforesaid explanation, we do not find any merit in this petition as it is clear from the aforesaid explanation that in Block Shaina, only 17 offices of Sarpanches were to be reserved keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes in the said block and inadvertently the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of Scheduled Castes was made for 18 offices. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was fully justified in making the change by reducing the reservation by one seat, i.e., from 18 to 17. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 12, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE