JUDGMENT S.K.Dhaon, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is the President of the Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan and the petitioner no. 2 is an elected member of the said Board. The District Magistrate on 31st March, 1990, issued a notice convening a meeting of the Board to consider a motion of non- confidence in the petitioner no. 1 At that stage, the petitioners came to this Court by means of this petition. Today the position is that even though the motion of non-confidence in the petitioner no. 1 has been carried but the same has not been given effect to so far on account of the interim orders passed by this Court. 2. The controversy in this petition is in a narrow compus. The Board comprised of 22 elected members, two ex officio members, two nominated members and the President directly elected. Thus, the total membership was 27. On 5th March, 1989. the State Government nominated Smt. Nirmala Rani and Sri Aziz Ahmad as members of the Board. On 15th February, 1990, the Governor promulgated the U. P. Urban Local-Self Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990. On 19th February, 1990, the State Government by a notification rescinded the nomination of the two aforesaid members We may note at this stage thai: one of the prayers to the petition is that the aforesaid Ordinance may be declared as null and void. 3. The question to be considered is as to what was the total membership of the Board on 31st March, 1990, or to be precise on the date when the notice together with the motion was presented to the District Magistrate. If the membership of the Board shrunk from 27 to 25 on account of the cancellation of the nomination of the two nominated members, the signing of the motion by 13 members was legal and valid. If, however, the act of rescinding the nomination of the two members did not result in reducing the total membership of the Board, then, the motion having been signed by not less than one half of the total members, the meeting could not be legally convened. 4. We make take judicial notice of the fact that the aforesaid Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 was followed by U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1990 and that Ordinance was replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). 4. We make take judicial notice of the fact that the aforesaid Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 was followed by U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1990 and that Ordinance was replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The Amending Act added yet another proviso after the third proviso to section 9 to the effect that member nominated, whether before or after the commencement of the said Ordinance, shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. The notification dated 19th February, 1990 was a general one as by means of it the State Government in the purported exercise of powers under the aforementioned proviso cancelled the nomination of all the nominated members of the Municipal Boards in the State. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S. K. Dhaon, J) is a member has in Writ Petition No. 11114 of 1990, Dr. (Smt.) Rama Misra v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 9-12-1991 held that the aforementioned proviso is ultra vires. This Court also quashed the notification dated 19tb February 1990. The effect of the said decision is that in the eye of law the two naminated members, who had been removed, continued to be the members of the Board and, therefore, the total membership of the Board will be deemed to be 27 on the relevant date. 5. Independent of the validity of the aforesaid proviso, a Division Bench in the case of Devendra Bahadur v. State of U. P. and others (Writ Petition No. 9451 of 1990) decided on 27th August, 1991, of which one of us (S K D. J ) was a member, has taken the view that once the normal composition of a Board is varied on account of the nomination of a woman and a member of the Safai Mazdoor class, no change in the composition of the Board so as to reduce the total membership of the Board will be brought about even if the nomination off either a woman or a member of a Safai Mazdoor class or both is recinded. This Court has taken the view that as a result of the withdrawal of the nomination, in the eye of law a casual vacancy will come into existence and for the purpose of computing the total membership of the Board a casual vacancy or vacancies shall be taken into account. 6. This Court in Writ Petition No. 11114 of 1990 has pointed out that the provision in the U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the representation of women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class has been made in pursuance of Article 15 of the Constitution, which is a forward step towards the attainment of equality in general as envisaged in Article 14. In this back drop the first proviso to section 9 which reads: Provided that if none or only one of the members elected under clause (b). is a woman, the State Government may, by notification, nominate two women members or one more woman member, as the case may be. so that the number of women members in the Board is not less than two and thereupon the normal composition of the Board shall stand varied to that extent" should be looked into. It was implicit in the unamended proviso that at least one woman should be a member of a Board, whether elected or nominated. The amendment has made it explicit that there should be at least two women members, whether elected or nominated. Likewise, it is contemplated that Safai Mazdoor class should have at least one representative in a Board. 7. So long as the required number of representatives of the woman as a class and the Safai Mazdoor as a class are not members of the Board, it is not open to the State Government to take the stand that it would not exercise its power of nomination. Such a situation will tantamount to failure to exercise a statutory power. Therefore, the State Government can be commanded by an appropriate direction to exercise its statutory power. 8. The power of picking out or choosing persons for nomination as representatives of women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class is separate from the jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that circumstances exist for the representation of women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class in a Board. 8. The power of picking out or choosing persons for nomination as representatives of women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class is separate from the jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that circumstances exist for the representation of women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class in a Board. In the exercise of jurisdiction, a decision is implicit. If the power to rescind a nomination is exercised the decision taken while exercising the jurisdiction remains unaffected. That decision is not recalled or revised. It follows that no change in the composition of the Board can be brought about by withdrawing or rescinding the nomination or nominations. The legal effect will be that a casual vacancy will come into existence if the nomination is either withdrawn or rescinded. The condition precedent to the exercise of power to nominate any individual or individuals is the existence of the fact that amongst the elected members there is neither any women or there is only one woman there is no elected member from amongst the Safai Mazdoor class. The Legislature, therefore, has laid down the condition under which the act of nomination can take place. The Legislature has also provided that once nomination takes place the normal composition of the Board as contained in section 9 stands automatically varied. It is implicit that the term of a nominated member is co-terminus with the term of the Board and it is also implicit that the variation of the normal composition on account of the nomination will last only till the life of the Board lasts. Once a fresh election takes place, again the exercise of nomination will have to be undertaken keeping in view the fact as to whether the circumstances for exercising the power of nomination exists or does not exist. 9. In Town Area Committee, Amanpur, district Etah v. State of U. P., 1990 (II) AWC 1596 , the membership of the Town Area Committee comprised 9 elected members and one Chairman. Two persons were nominated to represent women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class. Thus, the total membership came to 11 plus the Chairman. By a notification the State Government cancelled the earlier notification by which two persons had been nominated. Some members tendered their resignation. Two persons were nominated to represent women as a class and Safai Mazdoor as a class. Thus, the total membership came to 11 plus the Chairman. By a notification the State Government cancelled the earlier notification by which two persons had been nominated. Some members tendered their resignation. IN the purported exercise of powers under section 10-AA of the Act the District Magistrate dissolved the committee as he felt that the number of members of the committee, for the time being,, was reduced to one half of the total number of members of the committee. The Court was called upon to interpret sub-section (2) of section 10-AA, which read : "Where the number of members of the Board for the time being is reduced to less than one-half of the total number of members of the Board by reason of casual vacancies having occurred for any reason whatsoever, then the Board shall be deemed to be dissolved with effect from the date on which the number of members of the Board for the time being is so reduced or the date of commencement of this section which ever is later." The learned Judges dilated on tie expression "for the time being". They emphasised that what has to be seen is the number of the present members of the Town Area and not the strength of the Town Area. However, they made a passing reference by observing : "Thus the variation of normal strength of the Committee is conditional. Upon issue of notification by the State Government nominating a woman and person representing Safai Mazdoor class and once the notification nominating such persons have been revoked by the State Government, the strength of the Town Area Committee is reduced to its original number". The Honourable Judges were not called upon to decide as to what would be the effect on the composition of the Town Area Committee upon the revocation of the notification whereby members had been nominated. The controversy was as to whether the number of members of the Board for the time being had been reduced within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 10-AA. The afore quoted observation, therefore, at best is an obiter. 10. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings of the Board held on 16th April, 1990, in pursuance of the notice dated 31st March, 1990, issued by the District Magistrate are quashed. The afore quoted observation, therefore, at best is an obiter. 10. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings of the Board held on 16th April, 1990, in pursuance of the notice dated 31st March, 1990, issued by the District Magistrate are quashed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the working of the petitioner no. 1 as President of the Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan on the basis of the non- confidence motion in the petitioner, which was passed on 16th April, 1990. There shall be no order as the costs. Petition allowed.