Insofar as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, we find that the rotation policy had been followed in four subsequent elections and the cycle of rotation itself had been substantially completed. How it substantially completed when Neebi Gaharwar village panchayat made third time unreserved. Matter is concerned with village panchayat -Neebi Gaharwar ,Development block-Chhanbey ,District-Mirzapur,Uttar Pradesh, India.
12 November 2015
With due respect your appellant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to draw sustenance from a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prashant Bansilal Bamb Vs State of Maharashtra13. The Division Bench held that in light of the previous statement made before the Bombay High Court by the State Election Commission coupled with the provisions of the State Rules of 1996 which mandated rotation of seats amongst reserved categories.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
the State Election Commission was bound to act in accordance with the rules. The judgment referred to, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in an earlier round of litigation before the Bombay High Court, the State Election Commission had made an affirmation on oath that it would implement the rotation policy from the next elections.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
While the Rules, which fell for consideration, had been promulgated in 1996, the first elections had taken place in 1997 and the elections thereafter were to be held in 2007. It was in the above factual backdrop that the above decision came to be rendered.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Insofar as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, we find that the rotation policy had been followed in four subsequent elections and the cycle of rotation itself had been substantially completed. More importantly, we are faced with a statutory amendment which, while not doing away with the system of rotation only bids all to treat the ensuing elections to be the first elections and consequently provide that rotation would commence afresh. In the light of the above distinguishing features, we find that the judgment of the Bombay High Court does not carry the case of the petitioners any further. Whether in the name of first election or rotation would commence afresh ,Gram pradhan post in Neebi Gaharwar village panchayat will be made third time unreserved. Why ordinary backward class was deprived from the representation in Neebi Gaharwar village panchayat and if rotation would commence afresh ,then Gram pradhan post must be reserved for scheduled caste.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
PART E : Conclusion
For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the challenge which has been addressed before the Court and that the petitions would have to be dismissed. The Government Order dated 16 September 2015 is only consequential to the amendment of the Rules. No separate ground of challenge is urged.
The petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
9 October 2015
(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
(Yashwant Varma, J)
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.