JUDGMENT Mr. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. : - This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the meeting notice for election to the post of President, Municipal Committee, Nilokheri contemplating reservation for a male scheduled Caste member in place of the appellant against whom ‘no confidence motion’ has been passed. 2. The appellant was elected as member of the Municipal Committee, Nilokheri in election held on 22.2.2008 from ward No.7 under the scheduled caste woman category. She was elected as President on 20.3.2008 against reserved post under Rule 70 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 read with Section 10(5) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1978 and Article 243 T (4) of the Constitution. Requisite majority of the Councilors moved ‘no confidence motion’ under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of certain complaints and after due consideration the said motion was carried in meeting held on 22.12.2010. 3. The petition of the appellant against holding of meeting was dismissed which order was upheld by Division Bench in appeal. Thereafter, process of electing new President was initiated and in the impugned letter it was mentioned that since there was no female scheduled caste member available, male scheduled caste member could be elected as President. 4. Aggrieved thereby a petition was filed by the appellant with the contention that even if ‘no confidence motion’ was carried against her, she continues to be eligible and male scheduled caste member could not be appointed as President of the Municipal Committee as contemplated in the impugned letter. 5. Learned Single Judge held that since appellant had been removed from the post of President by way of ‘no confidence motion’, the only logical interpretation will be to consider her ineligible and allow the male scheduled caste member to be appointed as President against reserved post. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no provision in the Act barring a person against whom ‘no confidence motion’ has been passed from being appointed President against reserved post. Rule 70 contemplating appointment of the male scheduled caste member could not apply as the appellant could not be treated to be unavailable. 8. We are unable to accept the submission. 9. Rule 70 contemplating appointment of the male scheduled caste member could not apply as the appellant could not be treated to be unavailable. 8. We are unable to accept the submission. 9. Under the scheme of the Act though there is provision for reservation in favour of female scheduled caste member for the post of President, Section 21 of the Act provides for removal if a ‘no confidence motion’ is passed in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Rules. Once ‘no confidence motion’ with majority of 2/3 members is passed as provided under the Act, it cannot be held that such ‘no confidence motion’ is to be disregarded and appellant continued eligible for reappointment against the said post. Such interpretation would be nullifying the effect of the ‘no confidence motion’. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The appeal is dismissed. ----------------