C.W.P. No. 10355 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10355 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 26, 2008 Rama Kumari .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who was elected as a Panch of Village Gram Panchayat Begowal, Block Noor Jaimal Singh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur against the seat meant for Women category has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P1) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, whereby the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of the Village Gram Panchayat has been specified for General Category. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been elected as a Panch against the seat meant for category of Women. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide notification dated 10.4.2008 the Punjab Reservation for the Offices of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats and C.W.P. No. 10355 of 2008 -2- Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules, 1994 were amended. In Rule 3 after sub-rule (2) it has been provided that the roster referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be prepared block- wise by the Deputy Commissioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it has been denied that the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat should have been allotted to the category of `Women' in the election held on 26.5.2008. Rather, the office of Sarpanch has been rightly reserved for General Category. It has been further averred that the rotation system nowhere guarantees that in the year 2008, the office of Sarpanch should have been reserved for the category of `Women'. As such, there is no violation of the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Even otherwise, the petitioner is eligible to contest for the office of Sarpanch reserved for General Category. This factual position has not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the year 1998, the post of Sarpanch was specified for General Category and in the year 2003, the post of Sarpanch was allotted to `Scheduled Caste' category. Thus, as per the rotation policy, the post of Sarpanch should have been allotted to the category of `Women' in the election held on 26.5.2008. We do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It is undisputed that in the year 2008, the reservation has been made block-wise, as per amended Rules, and, therefore, the roster has to be re-drawn. If a mistake has been committed in the first instance and the C.W.P. No. 10355 of 2008 -3- reservation was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, then in that situation there is no bar in changing the reservation of the office of Sarpanch from the category of Women to General Category before the election. During the course of hearing, it has been stated that the election of Sarpanch has already taken place and one Panch belonging to General Category has been elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. In view of the undisputed facts, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned notification. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 26, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE