Rajesh Bindal, J.@mdashChallenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 29.12.2009, passed by the Election Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short,
''the Tribunal'') setting aside the election of the Appellant as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Block Guru Har
Sahai, District Ferozepur.
2. The election for the aforesaid Gram Panchayat was held on 21.7.2008. Gram Panchayat is constituted of five Panches. Three seats were meant
for General Category, whereas one each was reserved for General Women Category and Backward Class Category. The Appellant was elected
as Panch in the category of Backward Class, whereas Respondent No. 1 was elected as Panch in the General Category. The office of Sarpanch
was reserved for General Category. Against that post, the Appellant contested election. The Tribunal gave a finding that he having been elected
against the post reserved for Backward Class could not contest election for the office of Sarpanch.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, placing reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhjit Kaur v. State of
Punjab and Ors. 2008 (4) RCR 646, submitted that a Panch elected in any of the reserved category is entitled to contest election for the office of
Sarpanch, even if the same is not reserved for that category and is meant for General Category. In the present case, even if the Appellant had
successfully contested election for the post of Panch in the reserved category, he was entitled to contest election for the office of Sarpanch, which
was not meant for reserved category but for General Category. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the election deserves to be
set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents referring to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 45-A of Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994
submitted that in case the seat is reserved for a particular category and there is only one candidate available in that category, he shall be deemed to
be elected unopposed. However, he could not dispute the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sukhjit Kaur''s case (supra).
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
6. The facts of the present case, which are not in dispute, are that in the election for Gram Panchayat, Village Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar held on
21.7.2008, the Appellant was elected as Panch in Backward Class Category, whereas Respondent No. 1 was elected in General Category. The
office of Sarpanch was meant for General Category. In the meeting for election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat held on 21.7.2008, the name
of the Appellant was proposed by Manjit Kaur, one of the Members of Panchayat, and seconded by Makhan Singh. The Appellant was elected
therein. His election was challenged by Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal on the ground that the Appellant saving been elected from a seat
meant for reserved category could not contest election for the office of Sarpanch if the same was meant for General Category. The view expressed
by the Tribunal is patently erroneous if considered in the light of the judgments of this Court on the subject.
7. The issue as to whether a Municipal Councillor belonging to a Backward Class Category elected against a general seat could contest election
for the office of President if reserved for Backward Class was considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Kasambhai F. Ghanchi Vs.
Chandubhai D. Rajput and Others, and it was held that in case the person, who is seeking to contest ejection for the office of President is eligible
therefore, it does not matter from which category he has been elected. The relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below:
The Act and the Rules provide for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and women. No reservation or
classification is made ward-wise. To put it differently all members of the Scheduled Castes, for example, will be regarded as belonging to one class
irrespective of the fact whether they had been elected to a reserved seat or to a general seat. Similar is the position with regard to the Backward
Classes, Scheduled Tribes and women. The law does not contemplate or provide for any further sub-classification of the type which has been
suggested by the Respondents. Just as all members of the municipality, irrespective of the fact whether they had been elected to a reserved seat or
not, are eligible for election to the post of the President when it falls in the general category, similarly when as per the roster the President is to be
one who, say, belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste, then ail members of the municipality, who are Scheduled Caste, irrespective of the seat
to which they had been elected, would be eligible to stand for election. Neither the Act nor the rules stipulate that it is only such a member who has
been elected to the reserved seat who would be eligible to stand for election to the post of President when it is the turn of that category of
candidate to become me President of the municipality.
8. In Bihari Lal Rada Vs. Anil Jain (Tinu) and Others, , the issue under consideration before Hon''ble the Supreme Court was whether a person
elected against a seat meant for reserved category could contest election for the office of President, which is meant for General Category. Hon''ble
the Supreme Court opined that it does not matter from which source a candidate comes. His eligibility for contesting the election for the office of
President is to be considered independently. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhjit Kaur''s case (supra) is also in the same lines,
where the issue under consideration was for the office of Sarpanch. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below:
5. A similar question has also been answered by the Supreme Court in Kasambhai F. Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rajput and Ors. (199-2) 119
PLR 611, where the question was whether a candidate who belongs to a Backward Class, but has been elected from an unreserved seat, could
stand for election for the post of President of the Municipality which was reserved for a Backward Class candidate or whether the candidate for
the post could only be a person who was elected to the Municipality from a seat which was reserved for the Backward Class. The Supreme
Court, while answering the said question, observed that all the members of the Municipality, irrespective of the fact whether they had been elected
to a reserved seat or not, are eligible for election to the post of the President when it falls in the general category: Similarly when as per the roster
the President is to be one who, say, belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste, then all the members of the Municipality who are Scheduled
Caste, irrespective of the seat to which they had been elected, would be eligible to stand for election. Neither the Act nor the rules stipulate that it
is only such a member, who has been elected to the reserved seat, would be eligible to stand for election to the post of President when it is the turn
of that category of candidate to become the President of the Municipality.
6. Thus, in our opinion, Respondent No. 4, though she was elected to the office of Panch against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste
women, being a woman, was fully eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch, which is reserved for women. Therefore, we do not find any merit in
the instant writ petition.
9. The consistent view in the aforesaid judgments pertaining to election of Municipal Council or even Gram Panchayat is that a candidate, who has
been elected as Panch from any of the category, may be even reserved, is fully eligible to contest election as Sarpanch irrespective of the fact that
he had been elected as Panch on a seat against a reserved category. In the present case as well, the Appellant having been elected as a Panch may
be against the seat reserved for Backward Class Category is fully entitled to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, may be falling in general
category.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the election of the Appellant as Sarpanch is
totally erroneous and is set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is accepted.
