Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

giving effect to Section 162 of the Ranchayat Raj Act, read with Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. As such, it was sought to be canvassed, that each census and delimitation, has a bearing on the process_o~f--J.'fre_sEe1yation"

and "rotation".

19. The "fifth" facet of the third ?'_'_conte1it_vi'ori by ' the learned Counsel for theiianypellanht, on another vital fact brought to ovurzynotice;'referencve. toESections 161 and 163 of the the undisputed position betvy,e.en delimitation was carried out in the year 2005, which was given' Rhanchayat elections, which were conducted «in i.e. 2005. According to the learned LCou'nsel=f.or thevappellant, the issue of delimitation of'.efisubstantiialiiiisignificance, for the implementation of "rotation" contemplated by Section 162(3) of thle"«Pancl1ay'at Raj Act, read with, Rule 3 of the Reservation by J'Ro,tation'. Rules, 1998, inasmuch as, the number of e._i"c_onstituencies to be filled by reservations has to be "calculated, as a matter of first step, under sub--rule (1) of Rule (3) of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, for Scheduled Tribe candidates after every census and delimitation. Process 3W~'*Ei W9"

20; ii So as to summarise the eventual conclusions R to be drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellant, "-vvhich we shall refer to as the "sixth" facet of his third submission, it was asserted, that the "rotation" contemplated under Section 162 (2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, has been MW given full and complete effect by the State Election Commission, ie., the appellant herein, as per the mandate of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, for doing so, the starting point has been taken when the election process was conducted---fo_r~.,the: firstllitime, after the culmination of census, 3de'lirn.itation.___of;Talul; I Panchayat constituencies. V-'blginctte the._ellectio'ri' of was taken as the first for llreslervation, the said reservations were 'Tribes (under sub., rule[l} of Rule_3 of Rufles,l998) for Schedu.led'v (2) of Rule 3 of the ReseWatiQn*~g..b$; i998), for Backward Classes in terr-.*,1_s'--of of: Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, for women in terms of subwrule (4) .--__'of of it ""th.e.....Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. 'Wlherea,s,* instant process of election, which is to be heldiliin the "reservation" and "rotation" has been made in te1=rris;_ of the proviso under sub--rule (4) of Rule 3 of the "lii"_Rese_rvation by Rotation Rules, 1998. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it has been ensured, that the constituencies filled up by reservation, during the preceding electoral process (held in 2005) by providing for reservation W \l for a particular category, are not reserved for the saine category in the upcoming Panchayat elections (to be held in 2010). Thus viewed, it is submitted, that the.._'lappellant herein, must be deemed to have given effectto"th'e.._f'rc:t_ation"

contemplated under the Panchayat Raj A'ct»,.:
Reservation by Rotation Rules, 3
21. Having gone . filedvbby respondent No.1 in .\.ve'find,,.t§hat the claim raised on behalf of 9 ; _was sought to be substantiated gaslsurription, that the starting point ble~,,';:hle' elecltioniprocess of the year 1995, and process in the year 2005 (as in the case ofjhe for the appellant before us).

Having give'-nil it-holiightful consideration to the rival 9 9°--subrriis5siion'sgadvancled on the instant aspect of the matter, we 9 the initial reservation for filling up con--s_tit1;_ver:_cies by way of reservation under sub--Rules (1) to ll"'l"--..lVl"'{4})V,of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, has to cornrnence only from the electoral process conducted in the

From the Annexure~B, the learned out to us the number of villagews_,l:tAhialt out of, and also certain other been shifted into Anagodu constitueinov -__thel'evear 2005, which has altered its sub'st.a.n.tially. Hence, in the year 2005, the said VC0fiStit1.1e1'),C}7,VlVlas reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, during theiiipfesent eiectoral process the said. constituency is reserved: for Schedule Tribe (woman) candidates. We are, "'ii_th_er'efore, satisfied that "rotation" has been given due effect to, in the impugned notification dated 08.11.2010, within the meaning of the proviso under suberule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. . in fact, it was the Cl%«/.'=:Y»..4 \5*W\afi\ emphatic submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that not a single reserved constituency has been allotted in the present electoral process, to the saniieireserved category to which it was assigned in the e_l.;e'ctii.oni_s:beheld in 2005. There is therefore no scope for in-« present election process "rotation" hasnbeien Agivenieffec-Vt to in f the matter of "reservation"*as--._hasiib._eenV coniteimplatiediunder the proviso to sub--rule (4) o_f:i"Rule_p 3 of Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998;