IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPs No.1220 & 1279 of 2005 Decided on : December 17, 2008 CWP No.1220/2005 Kuldeep Dogra …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. CWP No.1279/2005 Subhash Dadwal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General; and Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Common issues of law have been raised in both these writ petitions. So, they are being disposed of by a single judgment. 2. Factual matrix, relevant for deciding these writ petitions, may be stated. Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, in the case of CWP No.1279 of 2005, and Deputy Commission, Una, in the case of CWP No.1220 of 2005, who are also the District Election Officers, have issued orders, making reservation for different categories and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… women, for election to the membership of various Panchayati Raj Institutions, as also the Chairpersons of such Institutions. Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, has issued notification Annexure P-1 (in CWP No.1279 of 2005), making reservation, while Una Deputy Commissioner has issued notification Annexure P-2 (in CWP No.1220 of 2005), for the same purpose. It is alleged that the reservation made by the two Deputy Commissioners is in excess of 50 per cent of the total seats and, hence, violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Also, it is alleged that as regards the offices of Chairpersons of various Panchayati Raj Institutions, reservation is not permissible, because every Institution is a single unit, of which there is only one Chairperson and in case reservation is made, in respect of any unit that will amount to 100 per cent reservation of the post of Chairperson, in respect of that particular unit. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Article 243-D of the Constitution of India, which is reproduced below, provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women in Panchayati Raj Institutions: “243D. Reservation of Seats.- (1) Seats shall be reserved for— (a) the Scheduled Castes; and (b) the Scheduled Tribes, in every Panchayat and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be …3… filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in that Panchayat area or of the Scheduled Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide: Provided that the number of offices of Chairpersons reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayats at each level as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State: Provided further that not less than one-third of the total number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for women: Provided also that the number of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level. (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in article 334. …4… (6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Panchayat or offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at any level in favour of backward class of citizens." 5. Now, according to clause (1) of Article 243-D, reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in every Panchayat, has to be made in accordance with their population in that particular Panchayat, and according to clause (2), 1/3rd of such reserved seats are to be reserved for women belonging to such categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. According to clause (3), out of the total number of seats in any Panchayat, not less than 1/3rd of the seats are to be reserved for women (inclusive of the number of seats reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, out of the total number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes). Clause (4) of Article 243-D of the Constitution of India provides for reservation of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at village or any other level in such a manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. First and second proviso to clause (4) make it plainly clear that for the reservation of offices of Chairpersons, the entire State is to be taken as one unit and not that every Panchayat or Panchayati Raj Institution is to be taken as a unit, individually. 6. What Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshal, has done is that out of total 75 seats, covered by notification Annexure P-1, 19 seats have been reserved for Scheduled Castes, out which 7 are further reserved for women …5… candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, 11 seats have been reserved for other backward classes (including four for women belonging to such backward classes) and 45 seats have been kept unreserved, out of which 15 are reserved for women belonging to open category. The order is in consonance with the provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of Article 243-D of the Constitution of India. Not only that the vires of Article 243-D of the Constitution of India has not been challenged in these petitions, but its validity has been upheld by a Full Bench of Patna High Court in Krishna Kumar Mishra and another etc. etc., versus State of Bihar and others etc. etc., AIR 1996 PATNA 112. So is the case in the matter pertaining to Una District. Overall reservation for Scheduled Castes and other backward classes is not in excess of 50 per cent nor is it the case of the petitioners that the reservation is in excess of the proportion, which the population of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes, bears to the total population of the concerned Panchayats. And only 1/3rd of the seats reserved for the two categories, as also the open seats have been reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes category, Other Backward Classes category and open category. 7. Contention raised by the petitioners that each Panchayati Raj Institution is a single unit and, therefore, reservation of post of Chairperson of any such Institution would amount to 100 per cent reservation, can also not be upheld because, as noticed hereinabove, first and second proviso to clause (4) of Article 243-D leave no doubt that …6… State is to be considered as a single unit for the purpose of making reservation for the posts of Chairpersons, in respect of Panchayati Raj Institutions at all levels, i.e., Village level, Block level and District level. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 17, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.