1996 (11) TMI 483 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Government Order dated 11th February 1995.
2. Eligibility criteria for the post of President of the Loharu Municipal Committee.
3. Interpretation of Rule 70(4) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978.
4. Applicability of Article 243T of the Constitution of India.
5. High Court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Government Order dated 11th February 1995:

The Government Order dated 11th February 1995 clarified that if there is a single member of the Scheduled Caste category (man or woman) in a municipality elected from a reserved ward, that member shall be deemed elected as President. This order effectively excluded Respondent No. 1 from contesting for the presidency, as she was elected from a General category women's seat. The Supreme Court upheld this order, finding it consistent with the statutory scheme and the Election Rules.

2. Eligibility Criteria for the Post of President of the Loharu Municipal Committee:

The appellant was elected from ward No. 5, reserved for Scheduled Castes women, while Respondent No. 1 was elected from ward No. 11, reserved for General category women. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presidency, reserved for Scheduled Castes women, could only be contested by those elected from seats reserved for Scheduled Castes women. Thus, the appellant was the sole eligible candidate for the presidency.

3. Interpretation of Rule 70(4) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978:

Rule 70(4) mandates that the offices of Presidents in municipalities be filled by rotation from members belonging to different categories: General, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, and women. The Court clarified that this rotation implies that only members elected from specific reserved seats can contest for the presidency when it is reserved for their category. Therefore, Respondent No. 1, elected from a General category seat, could not contest for a presidency reserved for Scheduled Castes women.

4. Applicability of Article 243T of the Constitution of India:

Article 243T provides for the reservation of seats in municipalities for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women. Sub-Article (4) specifically allows for the reservation of Chairpersons' offices in municipalities. The Supreme Court interpreted this provision to mean that such reservations must be strictly adhered to, and only those elected from the reserved categories can contest for the reserved offices. Thus, the appellant, elected from a Scheduled Castes women's seat, was the rightful candidate for the presidency.

5. High Court's Interpretation of the Relevant Statutory Provisions:

The High Court had allowed Respondent No. 1's writ petition, holding that an election should be held between the appellant and Respondent No. 1 for the presidency. The Supreme Court found this interpretation flawed, as it did not align with the statutory scheme and the constitutional mandate of Article 243T. The High Court's reasoning that all Scheduled Castes members could contest for the presidency was incorrect, as it overlooked the specific reservation for Scheduled Castes women.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, upholding the Government Order and the appellant's appointment as President. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the reservation scheme as outlined in the Constitution and the Haryana Municipal Act. The appellant was entitled to continue as President for her full term, and the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was dismissed.