IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1539 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.8.2011 Parveen Rani -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the election of respondent No.5 to the post of President of the Municipal Committee in reserved category as SC woman, as per the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder. 2. Elections to the Municipal Committee were held in May, 2010 and notice was given for administering oath and for conducting elections to the posts of President and Vice President out of the elected members. Accordingly, on 8.6.2010, respondent No.5 was declared elected to the post of President in reserved category as SC woman. Grievance of the petitioner is that the appellant was elected as Municipal Councilor against reserved category for SC woman and respondent No.5 was elected in General category. Thus, respondent No.5 was not L.P.A. No.1539 of 2011 eligible for election for the post of President, having been elected in General category. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the contention in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasambhai F. Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rjapur and others (1998) 1 SCC 285. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Apart from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court not being shown to be distinguishable, it is clear from the scheme of law that post reserved for SC woman can go to such person, irrespective of the category from where such SC woman may have been elected as member. 5. Even though this was the only contention raised before learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to submit that there should have been two meetings – one for administering oath and second for elections. He, however, fairly submits that respondent No.5 had majority of at least 9 members out of 15 who voted for her and thus, on merits, no prejudice is caused by the procedure followed. 6. Under the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE August 26, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2