JUDGMENT : 1. Party/Parties appear in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause-title. 2. Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel, appears for the petitioner and submits that a specific prayer has been made in the writ petition to restrain the Respondents/Panchayat Authorities from taking cognizance of the Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate issued in favour of the Private Respondent No. 6 enabling him to contest the election of Officer Bearers of the Birgram Gram Panchayat (GP in issue), particularly the Prodhan, which is reserved for a SC candidate. It is pointed out that the Respondent No. 6 has been elected on a General ticket in unreserved category and, had declared himself to be so at the stage of filing his nomination. 3. Mr. Ahmed argues that the Declaration required to be filed by any candidate under the panchayat election law/rules incorporates a specific declaration of the candidate’ caste status. Therefore, the petitioner not having declared his SC status at the stage of contesting the Panchayat Elections to the GP in issue, at this stage cannot be allowed to take benefit of a SC Certificate as issued to him on 4th June, 2018, i.e. after the elections, to create a convenience of contesting the reserved SC seat of Prodhan. 4. Mr. Ahmed points out that in the event a convenience is created in favour of the Respondent No. 6 now, the electoral mandate under which he obtained a seat in the GP under the General Category shall be frustrated. 5. Mr. Deb Barman, learned Counsel, appears for the Respondent No. 6 and questions the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the factual issues raised are fit to be referred to the Special Election Tribunal under the election law. Learned Counsel takes the next point that the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and particularly Section 9 Proviso thereof permits a member elected from an unreserved category to be eligible for election to the Office of the Prodhan or Upa-Prodhan reserved for the SC category if such candidate actually belongs to the SC category and, produces a Certificate, however subsequent, from the competent authority to establish his claim. Mr. Deb Barman relies upon the authority of (2018)1 CHN 32 to amplify his above referred contention. 6. On behalf of the State-Respondents, Mr. Mr. Deb Barman relies upon the authority of (2018)1 CHN 32 to amplify his above referred contention. 6. On behalf of the State-Respondents, Mr. Sengupta, learned Counsel, submits on instructions of the Prescribed Authority (PA)/ the Block Development Officer (BDO) reiterating the position of the Rules vide Section 9 Proviso (supra). 7. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that there cannot be two electoral mandates conferred on a single candidate. There requires to be a continuity of the mandate which a candidate claims to enjoy from the date of submitting himself for the election to the ultimate election of office-bearers. 8. A judicial view of the electoral process cannot be permissible of splitting such mandate of a candidate into two different categories, viz. reserved and unreserved, at stages convenient to the occasion thereby permitting a candidate, who allegedly has not declared himself or, as claimed, does not require to declare himself as SC candidate at the time of submitting himself for election, to claim a position of office-bearer/Prodhan on the basis of a SC Certificate subsequently obtained. 9. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court does not interdict the meeting scheduled take place today, that is 27th August, 2018 for electing the Prodhan/other office-bearers to the Birgram GP in issue. 10. However, such election shall be governed by the further adjudication in this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, parties are invited to exchange their quick and short Affidavits to the writ petition positively by the next date. 12. Let the matter next appear under the heading ‘Mentioned Matters’ on 20th September, 2018. 13. Affidavit-of-Service filed today be retained with the record.