Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1549 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2004-10-25

N.P.GUPTA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioners seeks a direction, that the respondents should provide reservation of wards, by strictly complying with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Election) Rules, 1994, Section 14 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, and Article 243-T of the Constitution of India, and consequently, Ward No. 12 may be ordered to be kept reserved as per law, and the list prepared on 4.9.2004 vide Schedule-D be quashed and set aside. 2. The controversy sought to be raised is with respect to reservation of different wards for the general elections of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to be held in 2004. 3. Before proceeding with the factual matrix, I feel like quoting the relevant provisions of law, being Section 14 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, hereafter referred to as the Act, Rule 3 and 5 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994, hereafter referred to as the Rules, and Article 243-T of the Constitution of India, which respectively read as under :Section 14 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959: "14 Delimitation Order (1) The State Government shall by order determine (1) the wards in which each municipality shall be divided for purpose of elections to the board, (b) the extent of each ward; (c) the number of seats. if any, reserved for members of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, as the case may be (and for women members of such castes and tribes and for members of backward classes and women members thereof) and (d) The (number of) wards for women candidates (1A) The seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, for Scheduled Tribes and for Backward Classes and for Women may be allotted by rotation to different wards in such manner as may be prescribed. (1B) The State Government shall carry out the determination of the boundaries of the wards and the allocation of sets reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women among the wards having regard to the provisions of section 9 and also to the following provisions, namely (a) all wards shall, as far as practicable. (1B) The State Government shall carry out the determination of the boundaries of the wards and the allocation of sets reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women among the wards having regard to the provisions of section 9 and also to the following provisions, namely (a) all wards shall, as far as practicable. be geographically compact areas; (b) "wards which are reserved for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall be distributed to different part of the municipal areas where to proportion of the population of such Castes or Tribes, as the case may be, is comparatively large; and" (c) the numbering of wards shall start from the North-West corner of the local area of the municipality. (2) The draft of the order under sub-section (2) shall be published for filling objections thereto within a period of not less than seven days and a copy of the same shall be sent to the board concerned for comments. (3) The State Government shall consider any objection and the comments received under sub-section (2) and the draft order shall, if necessary, be amended, altered or modified accordingly, and thereupon it shall becomes final." Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 : "3. Finalisation of Ward-(1) A Municipality shall be divided into wards by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (2) An Officer authorised by the State Government, hereinafter referred to in his Chapter as the "Officer" shall publish the draft of wards showing the area of wards, three numbering and wards reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe under Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act and on receipt of together with his comments thereon and any other material shall forward them to the State Government for approval. (3) On approval by the State Government, the officer shall so determine the wards reserved for women and Backward Classes as provided in these rules. (4) On completion of the above process the draft order shall become final and officer shall notify the list of ward and a copy thereof shall displayed on the Notice Board of the Municipality, Collector and the District Municipal Election Officer" Rule 5 : "5. (4) On completion of the above process the draft order shall become final and officer shall notify the list of ward and a copy thereof shall displayed on the Notice Board of the Municipality, Collector and the District Municipal Election Officer" Rule 5 : "5. Reservation of reserved wards-(1) The number of wards to be reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes and also for women shall be determined by the officer, in accordance with the provisions of act. (2) The Officer shall for the purpose of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, first identify the wards which consist of the population of the Scheduled Castes and such wards shall be serially arranged in the descending order of percentage of population of Scheduled Castes, and shall be assigned serial number as S.C.I.S.C.2 and so on. (3) The Serial number so assigned be know as special serial number for Scheduled Castes. (4) The Officer shall allocate the number of seats reserved for scheduled castes (including) one-third of such seats reserved for women, belonging to Scheduled Castes; Serially to wards bearing special serial number for Scheduled Castes. (5) The Officer shall also for the purpose of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes, proceed to identify the words which consist of population of Scheduled Tribes and such wards shall be serially arranged in the descending order of percentage of population of Scheduled Tribes and shall be assigned serial number as S.T.1, S.T.2 and so on. (6) The serial number so assigned shall be known as special serial number for Scheduled Tribes. (7) The Officer shall also allocate the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes (including one-third of such seats reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Tribes) serially to the Wards bearing special serial number for Scheduled Tribes. (8) Where a ward becomes common to be reserved for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, then it will be reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, whichever has higher percentage of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. (9) In every succeeding general election, the list of wards bearing special serial number for Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes shall - (i) Continue to be operated serially from special serial number following the special serial number, where the allocation of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes had ended in the preceding election. (ii) Be operated till it is exhausted, and (iii) Be operated till it is exhausted, (10) The Officer after having determined and allocated seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, shall allocate the number of seats reserved for Backward Classes (including one third seats reserved for women belonging to Backward Classes), to remaining ward by draw of lots. (11) The ward to be reserved for women shall be one third to total number of wards in municipality to be determined by draw of lots by the officer. (12) Wherever Seats are to be reserved by draw of lots the officer shall fix the place, date and time for the purpose of drawing lots and inform the members of the legislative Assembly representing a constituency which comprises wholly or partly the area of the municipality and the recognised political parties in the State of Rajasthan. The lots shall be drawn in the manner as determined by the officer in the presence of such members of the legislative Assembly or the nominees of the recognised political who may be present at the appointed time. Explanation-For the purpose of this rule and succeeding rules, recognised political parties means the political parties recognised in State as such under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. (13) Ward reserved for Backward classes and women by draw of lots in the first general election shall be excluded while drawing lots for such reservation in succeeding elections till the cycle is completed. (14) The provisions of sub-rule (1) to (13) shall be subject to the provisions of rule 3" Article 243-1 of the Constitution of India : 243T(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area bears rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. (4) The officers of Chairpersons in the Municipalities shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334. (6) Nothing in this part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality of offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour of backward class of citizens." Thus, according to a combined reading of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, and Article 243-T, after delimitation of wards, reservation of wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and horizontal reservation for women is required to be made, and such reservation is to be by rotation to different wards, and according to Rule 5, the rotation is to be operated till it is exhausted, and is to be re-operated from the beginning after it is exhausted. 4. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, hereafter to be referred as 'the Municipality', consists of 60 wards, out of which 7 wards are required to be reserved for Scheduled Castes (5 of men and 2 for women), 2 for Scheduled Tribes (one for men and one for woman), 13 for Other Backward classes (9 for men and 4 for women), and 38 are to remain as general wards, out of them 13 are to be reserved for women. 5. According to the petitioner, the first elections were conducted in the 1994, in accordance with the Rules, after their commencement, and the second elections were held in 1999. 5. According to the petitioner, the first elections were conducted in the 1994, in accordance with the Rules, after their commencement, and the second elections were held in 1999. In the elections of 1994 Ward Nos. 1, 11, 16, 48, 53, 55 and 59 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, and out of them Ward No. 12, and 33 were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, out of which Ward No. 12 was horizontally reserved for woman. Then, during the elections held in the year 1999, again those very 7 wards happened to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, and those very 2 wards happened to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. However, this time Ward No. 59 and 16 were horizontally reserved for women candidates instead of Ward No. 1 and 55. Likewise, in case of Scheduled Tribe instead of Ward No. 12, this time Ward No. 33 was reserved for Scheduled Tribe woman. Then for the purpose of conducting elections in the year 2004, a list of wards was prepared, which according to the petitioner was published, but according to the respondents it was not published, but then the petitioner claims to have submitted objections thereto. In the list so prepared on 21.8.2004, Ward No. 17, 18, 33, 51, 60, 12 and 40 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, while Ward No. 12 and 40 were horizontally reserved for women, and Ward No. 16 and 1 were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, out of them Ward No. 1 was horizontally reserved for woman. After the objections were filed. a fresh reservation list was prepared on 4.9.2004, which is under challenge, being Schedule-D, and therein, instead of Ward No. 17, 18, 33, 51, 60, 12 and 40; Ward No. 12, 17, 18, 33, 36, 40 and 51 were reserved for Schedule Castes, and instead of Ward No. 12 and 40, Ward No. 40 and 51 were horizontally reserved for women. Then instead of Ward No. 16 and 1, Ward No. 16 and 60 were reserved for Scheduled tribes, and out of them instead of Ward No. 1, Ward No. 60 was reserved for woman candidate. 6. The factual part of these reservations; and preparation of fresh reservation list, is not in dispute, inasmuch as, like Schedule-A, B, and D, the respondents have produced the lists, as Annexure R-1 to R-3. According to the petitioner, this reservation, so made is not in accordance with law. 6. The factual part of these reservations; and preparation of fresh reservation list, is not in dispute, inasmuch as, like Schedule-A, B, and D, the respondents have produced the lists, as Annexure R-1 to R-3. According to the petitioner, this reservation, so made is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has produced with the writ petition, as Annexure-4, a statement, showing the population percentage of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all the 60 wards, being one of the relevant criteria for reservation of wards by rotation under Section 14 of the Act and the Rule 5 of the Rules. This Annexure-4 is in descending order of population percentage of Scheduled Castes in different wards. It may be observed here, that the contents of Annexure-4 are also not a matter in dispute. With this it is contended, that in the first election of 1994, the first seven ward from out of Annexure-4, being Wards No. 11, 48, 16, 53, 1, 59 and 55 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, and therefore for the purpose of elections held in 1999, as per Rules, the reservation was required to be made by rotation, and according to that rotation next 7 wards being Ward No. 51, 17, 40, 60, 33, 18 and 12 were required to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, but instead of doing so, different wards were reserved without any basis, and thus for the elections of 2004, still next 7 wards being Ward No. 36, 10, 8, 34, 49, 58 and 14 were required to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, but then the reservation has not been made in this manner, which has infringed the right of the petitioner, inasmuch as, Ward No. 12, to which the petitioner belongs, was required to be reserved for Other Backward Classes for the elections of 2004, but instead of it, it has been kept reserved for Scheduled Castes. According to the petitioner, the same thing happened in almost all the wards of municipality, as, while preparing the list, compliance of Rules has not been made. This is the whole long and short of the factual averments of the petitioner. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed, that the factum of reservation of different wards, made in the elections of 1994, 1999 and 2004, so also the population percentage, as given in Annexure-4, was not disputed before me. 7. This is the whole long and short of the factual averments of the petitioner. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed, that the factum of reservation of different wards, made in the elections of 1994, 1999 and 2004, so also the population percentage, as given in Annexure-4, was not disputed before me. 7. According to the petitioner, in short, since the wards, finding place from S.No. 1 to 7 in Annexure-4 (hereafter referred to as the first seven wards), had been reserved as Scheduled Caste Ward, for the elections of 1994, the wards finding place at S.No. 8 to 14 in Annexure 4 (hereafter referred to as the second seven wards), were required to be reserved for Scheduled Castes for the elections of 1999, and then the Wards finding place from S.No. 15 to 21 (hereafter referred to as the third seven wards), were required to be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates for the elections of 2004. While vide Schedule-D, Ward No. 51, 17, 40, 33;18, 12 and 36 have bene reserved. 8. It may be noticed here, that these wards are second seven wards, except Ward No. 36, which is the first of third seven wards, and Ward No. 60 of second seven wards has been excluded, and has been reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 9. According to the grounds raised in the writ petition, this is in violation of the provisions of Article 243-T, Section 14 of the Act, and Rule 5 of the Rules. 10. Two sets of replies have been filed; one by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, purportedly by all the respondents, and the other one is on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 10. Two sets of replies have been filed; one by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, purportedly by all the respondents, and the other one is on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. According to the reply, reservation of wards by draw of lost was made on 21,8.2004, but it was not published, and when the respondents came to know of the error, committed in draw of lots, to the effect that wards relating to OBC and women category for the elections held in the year 1994 were not excluded while drawing lots, for reservation of these category of wards for the year 2004, and thereupon instructions were sought from the Directorate vide Annexure R-4, whereupon a clarification was issued vide Annexure R-5, whereby it was clarified, that wards reserved for Backward Classes, and women, by draw of lots, in the earlier elections, shall be excluded, while drawing lots for such reservations in succeeding elections, till the cycle is completed. Accordingly the wards, reserved for women and Other Backward Classes, for the elections held in the year 1994 and 1999, were excluded, and accordingly reservations were made vide notification dated 4.9.2004, by following the procedure, as prescribed by Rule 5(13) of the Rules, as well as the directions issued by the Directorate. Then at page-45, in para-10, a plea has been taken to the effect, that first seven wards were kept reserved for Scheduled Castes in the elections of 1994, and in the year 1999 the reservation was required to be made on rotational basis for the Scheduled Castes, and Wards No. 51, 17. 40, 60, 33, 18 and 12 (second seven wards) should have been reserved, but these wards could not be reserved. However this non-compliance of Rule 5(9) was not agitated at the relevant time, and the petitioner is not entitled to agitate the same now. 40, 60, 33, 18 and 12 (second seven wards) should have been reserved, but these wards could not be reserved. However this non-compliance of Rule 5(9) was not agitated at the relevant time, and the petitioner is not entitled to agitate the same now. A stand has also been taken to the effect, that according to Rule 5(9), in every succeeding general election, the list of wards bearing special serial number for SC or ST shall be operated serially, from special serial number, following the special serial number where the allocation of seats reserved for SC and ST and ended in the preceding election, and since in the preceding election of 1999, the last ward reserved for SC in descending order of SC population was 55, and therefore, this time the second seven wards have been reserved for scheduled caste, and thus there is no violation of provisions of Rule 5(9) of the Rules of 1994. Regarding requirement of reservation of Ward No. 12, for Other Backward Classes, a stand has been taken to the effect, that reservation of OBC is to be made by draw of lots, from amongst the remaining wards, after determination and allocation of SC and ST wards, and since Ward No. 12 has been reserved for SC, the petitioner can have no grievance. 11. In the reply of respondents No. 3 and 4, a stand has also been taken to the effect, that in view of the constitutional provisions, for whatever reason, the Municipal election cannot be with-held, nor a prayer to that effect can be made, and that, according to Article 243-ZG allotment of seats of such constituencies, or any issue relating to that, cannot be called in question in any court. 12. Regarding the stand taken by the respondents on the anvil of Article 243-ZG, i.e. constitutional bar against calling in question, the allotment of seats to any constituency, or any issue relating thereto: suffice it to observe, that the contention is based on misreading of Article 243-ZG(a), inasmuch as, the bar enacted therein is only against "validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies". In other words, bar under Article 243-ZG is not attracted, where the allotment of seats to any constituency is made, in flagrant, violation of the law, made in this regard. In other words, bar under Article 243-ZG is not attracted, where the allotment of seats to any constituency is made, in flagrant, violation of the law, made in this regard. In the present writ petition, validity of any of the law relating to delimitation, or allotment of seats to such constituency is at all not in question. If the argument of the respondent is countenanced, it would bring devastating results, inasmuch as, if the validly made law prescribed certain things to be done, still if they are not done in accordance therewith, yet the argument of the respondent is, that even such illegal actions cannot be looked into by the Court. In my opinion, this is not even the purport of bar enacted in language of Article 243-ZG, and therefore, this contention need not detain me at all. 13. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, practically reiterating the averments of the writ petition, and contending, that the respondents have not stated anything about the objections dated 28.8.2004, fled by the petitioner, Much less they have been considered, while objections were in accordance with the Rules, which, if were to be decided, they would not have left any grievance to the petitioner. Then it is also contended, that the respondents themselves have admitted, that they committed error in draw of lots, viz. that the wards relating to Other Backward Classes, and women category held in 1994, were not excluded for drawing lots for reservation of these categories of wards for the year 2004. According to the petitioner, there was no necessity for excluding the wards for Other Backward Classes, and women category for the elections held in the year 1994, for the reason, that after coming into force of the Rules of 1994, those wards were required to be excluded in the next elections of 1999, and 2004 respectively. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents have tried to mislead the Court, by mentioning that they have committed error in draw of lots for the elections held in the year 1994. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents have tried to mislead the Court, by mentioning that they have committed error in draw of lots for the elections held in the year 1994. It is also contended, that even Annexure R-5 makes it clear, that reservations made in the year 1994 and 1999 are expected to be excluded for the forthcoming elections, and that if any action has been taken for reservation of wards, without following the said procedure, then the same would be cancelled, and reservation be confirmed in consonance with the rules. Thus, according to the petitioner, if this Annexure R-5 were complied with the petitioner would not have been compelled to approach his Court. Another limb of stand taken is, that when the respondents have themselves admitted that the second seven wards would have been reserved for SC candidates in the year 1999, yet they have been reserved in 2004, and thus the respondents are trying to perpetuate illegality, under the cover of the stand of non-agitation of illegality at that time, which cannot be permitted. According to the petitioner. reserving of second seven wards in the election 2004, consequent upon illegality committed by the respondents, while holding elections of 1999, amounts to perpetuating illegality. 14. The writ petition was argued at length, and the above mentioned very contentions were projected in different ways. Likewise, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon few judgments, being those in Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ant v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors (1997) 6 SCC 766 , Azizulla Khan v. State & Ors. 1991(1) WLC (Raj.) 132 , Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam AIR 1957 SC-304 , P.G. Joshi v. The Director General, Posts and Telegraphs AIR 1975 SC 1 , Union of India v. International Trading Co.,(2003) 5 SCC-437 Ashok Kapil v. Sanaullah, (1996) 6 SCC 342 Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC 2268 Secretary Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC-35M/s. Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services & Ors. JT 1997(8) SC 171 , Nelson Motis v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC-1981 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Radhakrishann AIR 1979 SC-1588 . 15. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services & Ors. JT 1997(8) SC 171 , Nelson Motis v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC-1981 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Radhakrishann AIR 1979 SC-1588 . 15. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I would, first of all like to deal with the judgments cited. 16. Taking up the case of T.K. Suryanarayan, it was a service matter where some promotions were given to some employees by misreading of the rules, or pursuance to some orders of the Court. Learned counsel for the pet loner relied upon the observations made in para-8 that "the statutory service rules must be applied strictly", as indicated in the case of Director, Central Rice Research Institution v. Khetra Mohan Das 1994 Supp(3) SCC-595 . And it was in that context, that it was observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, that the statutory service rules must be applied strictly. In my view, this proposition is not in dispute, that the statutory rules must be strictly complied with.In Azizulla Khan's case, the reliance is placed on the principles propounded in para-35, being direction No. 5, which reads as under : "5. While allotting the number of the principle of contiguity will be followed and the efforts shall be made to complete the circle from first ward to the last ward." 17. Suffice it to say, that these directions relate to the delimitation of wards, as to how individual area is to be divided into wards, and as to how wards are to allotted serial number, and in that context it has been held, that while allotting the numbers, the numbers of continuity will be followed, and efforts shall be made to complete the circle from first ward to last ward, and therefore, this direction is of no relevance to the present case. The other observations relied upon by the learned counsel in this case is contained at page-148, where it was held that "it is the settled principle of law that when the law clearly provides the particular thing to be done in a particular manner, that has to be done in that very manner and cannot be permitted to be done in any manner other than that which has been presented under the law." This principle is so well settled, that it does not involve any controversy. 18. Then coming to Radhev Shyam Dani's case, reliance was placed on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-12, viz. that "opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned". Suffice it to, say, that it was a case where nomination of the candidates was rejected, thereupon the writ was filed for mandamus against the respondents in the writ, to reconstitute the Municipal Committee by a properly made and published notification, and restraining the District Magistrate from holding the elections. In that case, the writ petitioner communicated to Hon'ble the Supreme Court case, that he is not desirous to appear and contest the appeal. It appears from para-3, that the learned Judicial Commissioner upheld the contention of the writ petitioner relating to reconstitution of the Committee, and did not issue any directions in regard to the same, in view of the fact that the respondent had already issued a notification under Section 8(1) of the Regulation re reconstitute the committee. Thus, this finding only supports the petitioner, to the extent, that the person concerned has a right to raise objections, and the objections are required to be considered. 19. Then P.G. Joshi's case was relied upon, to explain the meaning of 'rotation'. That was a case, where some persons were working as clerks in the Post and Telegraph Department, while some persons were and appointed as Wireless License Inspectors. 19. Then P.G. Joshi's case was relied upon, to explain the meaning of 'rotation'. That was a case, where some persons were working as clerks in the Post and Telegraph Department, while some persons were and appointed as Wireless License Inspectors. According to the relevant rules, the appointments to the post of Wireless License Inspectors, in any Division, are to be made from amongst the clerks working in the Division, subject to certain exceptions, and according to the rules the candidate was required to pass a written test, but then the official appointed as Wireless License Inspector could not be allowed to hold such a post for more than three years continuously at one time, and the official who was worked as Wireless License Inspector for three years continuously, should not ordinarily be i appointed to hold such a post within the next three years, and the period of tenure shall not be extended in any case, except on very strong administrative grounds, and the prior approval of the Director General should be obtained. It is in this background that in para-17, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held, that according to the Government decision these posts should be treated like other posts for which rotational transfers are prescribed. Then dictionary meaning of "rotational" was relied upon, being regular and recurring; succession in office or duties, and it was held, that an element of rotation must be involved in rotational transfer. Then it was further held, that the expression "rotational transfer' means transfer from one place to another place, and from one division to another division, but in the same cadre, and that the expression, in the context, can only mean transfer from one post to another, and after the member has spent some time in the post to which he has been transferred, he should be brought back to the original post. This would involve an element of rotation. Suffice it to say, that the meaning of expression "rotation" is not in dispute. Even on the language of the Rules, the rotation is to be continued till it is exhausted, and thereafter it is to be re-operated from the beginning. 20. Ashok Kapil's case was relied upon for the proposition, that no-one can take advantage of his own wrong. Suffice it to say, that the meaning of expression "rotation" is not in dispute. Even on the language of the Rules, the rotation is to be continued till it is exhausted, and thereafter it is to be re-operated from the beginning. 20. Ashok Kapil's case was relied upon for the proposition, that no-one can take advantage of his own wrong. So far abstract legal principle is concerned, this is not in dispute, but then question is, as to whether in the present case the respondents are taking any advantage of any wrong? This aspect of the matter, as to whether the respondents are taking the advantage of their own wrong, I shall deal later. 21. So far International Trading Co.'s case is concerned, after having gone through the entire judgment, from para 13 to 16 as pressed into service, in my view, that judgment has no bearing whatever, on the present controversy, inasmuch as, that was a case of grant of permits under the provisions of Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, and the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels Rules, 1982, and the principles of legitimate expectation, equality discrimination and arbitrariness, in the change of Government policy were taken into account, while in the present case, it is not in dispute that the reservation was required to be made in accordance with the Rules, rather strictly in accordance with the Rules. The only question is, as to whether, in the present case it has been made in accordance with the Rules, or not. If it is found to be made in accordance with the Rules, the principles propounded in International Trading Co. need not be passed into service, and if it is found to have not made in accordance with the Rules, then obviously that would be set aside. 22. So far the case of Sanyasi Raju is concerned, it is relied upon for the proposition, that on the principles of Articles 14, a mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That was a case where, another person was given benefit of pension after removal from service, on the wrong advise, and on the pension being given to other person, the petitioner therein also claimed pension. That was a case where, another person was given benefit of pension after removal from service, on the wrong advise, and on the pension being given to other person, the petitioner therein also claimed pension. The High Court negatived that claim, and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while upholding it, laid down, that merely because on wrong advise another employee was given pension after removal from service, the same cannot be made a ground to perpetual the same mistake. 23. Likewise, Daulat Mal Jain's case is also a case, where in the matter of some relaxation, granted by the Land Acquisition Officer consequence upon allotments of land, the question was that some persons were granted some benefit. and for claiming identical benefits the writ jurisdiction was invoked, and dealing with film question, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held, that the judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegality. Article 14 proceeds on the premise, that a citizen has legal and valid right enforceable at law, and persons having similar right and persons similarly circumstance, cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Such persons cannot be discriminated to deny the same benefit, but then rational relationship and legal back up are the foundations to invoke the doctrine of equality in case of persons similarly situated, and that one illegality cannot be compounded by permitting similar illegal or illegitimate or ultra vires acts. On facts, finding that other persons were given benefit illegally, the claim of the petitioner was declined. 24. In M/s. Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre's case, the claim laid was, for exemption under the Customs Act by a private diagnostic Centre, on the ground that it was allowed to other hospital, but then it was found that the exemption was not admissible under the law, and therefore, simply because it was allowed to other hospital, it cannot be claimed to be granted on the anvil of Article 14, as wrong orders cannot be perpetuated with the help of Article 14. 25. In my view this principle prohibiting perpetuation of illegality is not attracted in the present case, as it is no body's case, that protection of Article 14 is sought to be claimed by any-one, for the purpose of perpetuating such illegality, much less by judicial process. 26. Nelson Motis's case was cited for the purpose of principles of interpretation of statutes, as to when the statute can be read down. 26. Nelson Motis's case was cited for the purpose of principles of interpretation of statutes, as to when the statute can be read down. In the present case, there is no question of interpretation of statutes involved, inasmuch as language of the statutes noticed above is absolutely clear, and is to be interpreted as per its plain language. 27. So far as Radha Krishan's case is concerned, the principles propounded therein are not at all relevant for the present purpose. 28. Now, taking up the rival contentions of the parties, suffice it to say, that as noticed above, it is not in controversy that out of 60 wards, seven are required to be reserved for Scheduled Castes (out of them 5 for men and 2 for women), 2 for Scheduled Tribes (on for man and one for woman), and-I3 for Other Backward classes (9 for men and for women), and 38 are to remain as general wards, out of them 13 are to be reserved for women. Likewise the factum of reservation of different wards in the elections of 1994 and 1999 is also not in dispute. The question, thus requires to be examined is, as to whether reservation of wards made vide Schedule-D, or for that matter vide Annexure R-6, is valid or not? Bearing legal principles of interpretation, as propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, and as noticed above, according to Article 243-T, the reservation of wards is to be made in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, and such seats are to be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. Likewise, not less than one third of the total number of seats are required to be reserved for women, including the seats reserved for women of Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes, and such seats are also required to be allotted by rotation, to different constituencies in the Municipality. Then according to Clause 6 of this Article, State Government has been empowered to make legislation. making provision for reservation in favour of the backward class of citizens. Then according to Clause 6 of this Article, State Government has been empowered to make legislation. making provision for reservation in favour of the backward class of citizens. It is, in purported exercise of this power, that in Section 14 of the Act, in turn provisions has been made for delimitation of number of wards to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women, and Other Backward classes, and it is provided, that the seats reserved for these categories may be allotted by rotation to different wards, in such manner as may be prescribed. For the purpose of prescribing the requirements. the provision is made in Rule 3 and 5. The most relevant and significant rule for the present purpose is Rule 5. 29. According to Rule 5 after the number of wards are determined for reservation, the officer is to identify the wards, which consists of population of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes respectively, and is to assign respective serial number as S.C.1 S.C. 2 and S.T. 1 and S.T.2 and so on. Then the allocation is to be made about the number of seats reserved to the extent of one third for women. Then according to sub-rule (8), where a ward becomes common, to be reserved for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, then it is to be reserved in the category of which it has higher percentage of population, whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Then the most significant provisions, which are precisely a subject matter of controversy, are that of sub-rule (9), where under in every succeeding general election, the list of wards bearing special serial number for Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes, is required to be continued to be operated serially from special serial number following the special number, where the allocation of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes had ended in the preceding election, and is required to be operated till it is exhausted, and further it is to be re-operated from the beginning after it is exhausted. Thus according to this sub-role 9, the list is to be operated serially, till is exhausted, and the operation in the succeeding election is to be commence from the number following the special serial number which had ended in the preceding election. Thus according to this sub-role 9, the list is to be operated serially, till is exhausted, and the operation in the succeeding election is to be commence from the number following the special serial number which had ended in the preceding election. Then after this being done, allocation of number of seats reserved for backward classes, including one third seats reserved for women belonging to backward classes, is to be done by draw of lots out of the remaining wards. Then according to sub- rule 11, the reservation of wards for the remaining women is to be done by draw of lots. It is in this sequence, that, under sub-rule 13, the wards reserved for backward classes, and women by draw of lots in the first general election is required to be excluded, while drawing the lots for such reservation in succeeding elections "till the cycle is completed.". This sequence of mechanism, in my opinion, makes it un-ambiguosly clear, that the number of wards to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe is to be proportionate to the population percentage of the entire municipality, at the same time the reservation of wards, whether it be for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Women, is required to be rotated, till the list is exhausted, and thereafter, is to be re-operated from the beginning. The obvious consequence of rotating the wards, for reservation, till the list is exhausted, and to re-operate from the beginning after it is exhausted clearly is, that the wards already reserved in the preceding election/elections, is required to be excluded from that very reservation in the succeeding elections. This is apart from the fact, that this position is clearly envisaged by sub-rule 13. 30. As appeared during the course of arguments, that if the 50 reservations were operated in the elections of 1999. in the above manner, the situation as has emerged vide Annexure R-6, would not have come about, and it has come about, only because, for the elections of 1999, those very first seven wards, for Scheduled Castes, and the two wards for Scheduled Tribes, were again treated as reserved, except making changes in women wards. 31. in the above manner, the situation as has emerged vide Annexure R-6, would not have come about, and it has come about, only because, for the elections of 1999, those very first seven wards, for Scheduled Castes, and the two wards for Scheduled Tribes, were again treated as reserved, except making changes in women wards. 31. That being the position, the question is, as to what is to be the consequence of not reserving the second seven wards during the elections of 1999, i.e. whether during the elections of 2004, third seven wards are required to be reserved, or second seven wards can be, or rather are required to be reserved?, inasmuch as, vide Annexure R-6 except ward No. 60, the second seven wards have been reserved, and instead of ward No. 60, the immediately next, being the first of third seven wards, i.e. Ward No. 36, has been reserved, while ward No. 60 has been reserved for S.T. 32. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the list is required to be operated by rotation according to Rule 5, and simply because, during the elections of 1999 the rotation was not operated, thereby it does not entitle the respondents to operate it now in the year 2004, from the point it was left in 1994, or for that matter even in the year 1999, and therefore, third seven wards are required to be reserved, and if that be done, Ward No. 12 could not be reserved, as falls in second seven wards, with the result that Ward No. 12 is available for draw of lots for Other Backward Class, to which the petitioner belongs. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is, that the reservation is to be made by excluding the wards already reserved in the previous election for that category, i.e. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes, or Women, and then the list is to be operated, and in that process, it is to be operated, from the number next to the one till it was operated during the previous election, till the list is exhausted, and therefore, even if it was not operated in 1999, that does not entitle the petitioner to claim, that it may be operated from the point, at the end of second seven wards. 33. 33. In my view, the scheme of things as appearing from Article 243-T and Rule 5, read with Section 14, clearly show, that the reservation is to be provided proportionate to the extent of the population in the municipality, and at the same time, the reservation to that extent is also required to be rotated all over the municipal area, so that every voter of the area gets equal opportunity, and simply because certain number of wards only consist of higher percentage of population of the reserved category, are not tied down for all times only to the candidate of that category. It is in this process, that rotation is to be operate I till the list is exhausted, obviously for each category, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes, or Women. If it is to be operated till the list is exhausted, in every succeeding election, all such wards which had been reserved in the previous elections, for that every category, i.e. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes or Women, is required to be excluded, for the purpose of reservation in the succeeding election. It is then only, that rotation can be operated till the list is exhausted. To illustrate, if in the first election first seven wards are reserved, and in the second election second seven wards are reserved, then in third election both these sets of seven wards are required to be excluded. Likewise, where the reservation is to be made by drawn of lots, there also, the wards reserved earlier, in the preceding elections, have to be excluded, then only the remaining wards could be reserved, otherwise there is every chance of the previously reserved ward, again falling to the lot of reservation, which is not permissible. This is one aspect of the matter. The other equally important aspect of the matter is, that in the very scheme of things, at one point of time or the other, every ward of the municipal area is to get reservation, for each category of reservation, whether it be for Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes, or Women, inasmuch as, each ward has once to be reserved for each of these categories. till the list is exhausted, and thereafter, the reservation is to be re-operated from beginning. 34. till the list is exhausted, and thereafter, the reservation is to be re-operated from beginning. 34. Now, if the controversy involved in the present case is examined from his stand point, the obvious result is that, notwithstanding the omission to operate the list in the year 1999, in the election of 2004, the list is to be operated from the point at which it was left, during the preceding election. If any otherwise view is taken, then the consequence would be, that on the first exhaustion of the list, the set of second seven words would never get reservation, which cannot be said to be in accordance with the requirement of complete rotation till the list is exhausted. The rotation does not permit any 15 jumping of queue, or leaving aside any part, but then at the same time as held above, in the rotation, each ward is to get reservation in each category of reservation, in one round of that category, till the list is exhausted, and for that purpose some necessary adjustments in priority of reservation are required to be made. True it is, that the said first seven wards, have happened to be reserved twice over, i.e. in the year 1994 and 1999, but then, equities in that regard can be settled by the appropriate authorities, by taking into account this fact, while operating the list again, after first exhaustion, and may well stand advised to exclude the first seven wards, while re-operating the list, while making reservation of same wards for Scheduled Caste, or Scheduled Tribe, but then, on account of that, the set of second seven wards cannot be deprived of reservation, in the entire first round of exhaustion of the list. 35. In that view of the matter, I have not been able to persuade myself, to accede to the contention, about set of third seven wards to be required to be reserved for the elections of 2004. 36. In view of the above conclusion, alternative contention raised was, that second seven wards included Ward No. 60 to fall for reservation for Scheduled Castes, as against which, it has been reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 36. In view of the above conclusion, alternative contention raised was, that second seven wards included Ward No. 60 to fall for reservation for Scheduled Castes, as against which, it has been reserved for Scheduled Tribes. True it is, that Ward No. 60 fall in that criteria for reservation for Scheduled Castes, but then, a look at the comparative chart of reservation, cuing the previous elections, being Annexure-4, does show, that in all 20 wards were reserved for women in the elections of 1994, being Ward No. 1, 7, 8, 12, 18, 22, 24, 25, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50 and 55. This 20 included reservation for women, in the category of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes as well. Then, in the elections of 1999, these wards were not repeated for reservation for women, inasmuch as, in 1999, the wards reservation for women, including all categories, were Ward No. 5, 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 41, 47, 54, 57, 59. Thus out of 60 wards, during the two elections 40 wards happened to be reserved for women, and the remaining 20 wards only could be reserved for female, and in that process, ward No. 60 was required to be reserved for woman, and from out of the wards, falling in lot of second seven, except Ward No. 51, 40 and 60, all other wards had been reserved for women candidates in the past, and looking to the population percentage Ward No. 60 was rightly required to be reserved for S.T, as the ward contained higher population of Scheduled Tribes after the wards No. 12 and 33 which had already been reserved in the elections of 1994 and 1999, and the ward, having next higher percentage of population available, was Ward No. 60, so as to be available for Scheduled Tribes category, and for women, as Ward No. 16 had already been reserved for woman in the election of 1999. Therefore, after exclusion of Ward No. 60, immediately next available ward, being Ward No. 36, in the list of Scheduled Caste Wards, was rightly reserved. 37. Therefore, after exclusion of Ward No. 60, immediately next available ward, being Ward No. 36, in the list of Scheduled Caste Wards, was rightly reserved. 37. This clearly shows, that the respondents have made the reservations fully in accordance with letter and spirit of the provisions of Rule 5, including sub-rule 9 and 13 thereof, and I do not find any violation of Section 14 or Article 243-T either. 38. Then I take up the contention about the respondents being not entitled to take advantage of their own wrong. All that has been contended in this regard is, that the respondents have admitted to have committed wrong in not reserving second seven wards during the elections held in the year 1999, and therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage thereof, so as to be entitled to reserve them during the elections of 2004. In my view, on these facts, in view of the conclusions arrived above, it cannot be said that the respondents are taking any advantage of their wrong. True it is, that the respondents had committed error, but then, I am at loss to comprehend, as to what advantage the respondents are deriving, from the error committed by them in not reserving second seven wards for S.C. in the elections of 1999. Entitlement for reservation of wards is the right of the residents of the ward, under the scheme of the provisions of Article 243-T, Section 14 and Rule 5. The advantage of the reservation was drawn by first seven wards twice over, being in the year 1994 and 1999, but then thereby the respondents did not derive any advantage. Likewise whether second seven wards were reserved for 2004, or third seven wards are reserved in the election of 2004, can hardly be said to be resulting into any advantage or disadvantage to the respondents. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents are taking any advantage of their own wrong. 39. Net result is that I do not find any force in the writ petition; the same is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******