1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7428 OF 2010 Rakhamaji s/o Ghanshyam Telange ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.M. Humbe, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri P.D. Bachate, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 18th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for directing the respondents to accept the nomaination paper for the post of Sarpanch of village Suppa (J), Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani, which is reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates. 2. It appears that, the general elections of Grampanchayat, Suppa (J), Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani were concluded on 31.7.2010. The petitioner claims to have been duly elected from a ward which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates. 2 The contention of the petitioner is that since the post of Sarpanch is reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, the Returning Officer should accept the nomiantions from candidates who have been elected from the ward reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates alone. It appears that, respondent No.5 has submitted his nomiantion form for the post of Sarpanch as respondent No.5 belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, but had been elected from the ward which was meant for open category candidates. 3. Our attention has been invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasambhai F. Ghanchi Vs. Chandubhai D. Rajput and others etc. (AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 815). The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that a candidate/ counsellor belonging to backward class, elected to Municipality from unreserved seat can stand for election for post of President and the candidate for that post need not be person elected from seat reserved for backward class only. 4. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp7428.10