Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 704 (RAJ)

Yogendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2020-11-21

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Through Video Conferencing) 1. Vide this order above mentioned petitions would be disposed of as the controversy involved in all the cases is the same. 2. Petitioners have filed the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 20.10.2019. In some of the petitions vires of subsequent notification dated 13.10.2020 has also been challenged. The controversy involved in the petitions relates to reservation of seats for the post of Chairpersons of various Municipalities in the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the post of Chairperson on the basis of reservation of various Municipalities should be filled up by way of rotation. Learned counsel have submitted that as per Article 243T(6) of the Constitution of India, nothing shall prevent the legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality or offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities. As per Clause (4) of the said provision, the offices 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. As per Section 43 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it was provided that the Municipalities in which office is reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall be distributed throughout the State and located as far as practicable in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large. In-fact, the post of Chairpersons on the basis of reservation were liable to be filled in on the basis of rotation so that every constituency gets a chance for the post of Chairperson on the basis of reservation. The State was not following the procedure of declaring the posts on the basis of reservation of Chairperson by way of rotation. Instead, only few constituencies had been selected and were being given reservation. As per notification dated 30.10.1999 (Annexure-5 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12682/2020) procedure had been provided for allotting the reserved posts of Chairman, Municipalities. The said notification had been withdrawn with retrospective effect vide notification dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure-15 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12682/2020) during pendency of petitions. As per notification dated 30.10.1999 (Annexure-5 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12682/2020) procedure had been provided for allotting the reserved posts of Chairman, Municipalities. The said notification had been withdrawn with retrospective effect vide notification dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure-15 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12682/2020) during pendency of petitions. In the reply filed by the State in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19859/2020, it had been submitted that reservation of Chairperson after implementation of rotation policy in accordance with Article 243T of the Constitution of India, was being followed. It was further replied that reservation to the seat of Chairperson was made after following rotation policy through lottery/draw system in consonance with Article 243 of the Constitution of India. Although, under Article 243T(4) of the Constitution of India it had not been specifically provided that rotation system was to be followed, but the same was being followed in other States/Union Territories, i.e., Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Telengana, Tripura, Jharkhand and Goa. It was discriminatory that reserved category candidates were not getting chance to become Chairperson of general category candidates area. 4. In support of their arguments, learned counsels for the appellants have placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat & Ors.,: (2020) 6 SCC 548 , wherein it has been held as under:- "6. As is apparent from the above extract, there is a pointed reference to this Court's order dated 17-7-2019 in C.R. Jayasukin v. T.N. State Election Commission. This Order was delivered in M.A. No. 2328 of 2019 which was filed by the State Election Commission and reads as under: (scc OnLine SC paras 1-4) "1. On 2-7-2019 C.R. Jayasukin v. T.N. State Election Commission, this Court had passed the following order: (C.R. Jayasukin case, SCC OnLine SC paras 1-2) "1. Respondent 1, the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, shall file an affidavit within two weeks hence, indicating the time within which the delimitation exercise that is stated to be at an advance stage, will be completed and when elections to the local bodies can be held. 2. List the matter on 17-7-2019." 2. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit dated 15-7-2019, has been filed by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission. 3. 2. List the matter on 17-7-2019." 2. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit dated 15-7-2019, has been filed by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission. 3. We have perused the said affidavit and we are satisfied with the grounds mentioned therein, which explain the delay in completion of the delimitation exercise and in issuing the notification in respect of local bodies elections. We have also taken note of the fact that in paragraph 28, the Secretary of the State Election Commission has stated that the notification announcing the schedule of the election will be published in the last week of October, 2019. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement made before the Court in the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the State Election Commission, we permit the State authority to act in the manner as undertaken before the Court i.e. publish the election notification in the last week of October 2019." xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx 15.1 The Respondent authorities shall hold elections to all Panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels, except those in the following nine reconstituted districts: i. Kancheepuram ii. Chengalpattu iii. Vellore iv. Thirupathur v. Ranipet vi. Villupuram vii. Kallakurichi viii. Tirunelveli ix. Tenkasi; 15.2. The Respondents (including the Delimitation Commission) are directed to delimit the nine newly constituted districts in accordance with law and, thereafter, hold elections for their panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels within a period of four months." 5. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed the petitions and has submitted that the writ petitions were not maintainable. Out of total 196 Municipalities, election process had already taken place in 55 constituencies. Since election process had already started, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. 6. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 669 , wherein it has been held as under:- "16. In this case we are not faced with that difficulty because the Constitution itself provides under Art. 329(a) that any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies etc. made or purporting to be made under Art. 327 shall not be called in question in any court. In this case we are not faced with that difficulty because the Constitution itself provides under Art. 329(a) that any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies etc. made or purporting to be made under Art. 327 shall not be called in question in any court. Therefore an order under S. 8 or 9 and published under S. 10(1) would not be saved merely because of the use of the expression " shall not be called in question in any court". But if by the publication of the order in the Gazette of India it is to be treated as law made under Art. 327, Art. 329 would prevent any investigation by any court of law. 17. In dismissing the petition under Art. 327 of the Constitution the High Court of Madhya Pradesh relied exclusively on the decision of this Court in (N.P. Punnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, : 1952 SCR 218 : ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ) which proceeded on the basis of certain concessions made. There the appellant was a person who had filed a nomination paper for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Namakkal constituency which was rejected. The appellant thereupon moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and to direct the said officer to include his name in the list of valid nominations to be published. The High Court dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer by reason of Art. 329(b) of the Constitution. The Court pointed out (at p. 225 of SCR): (at p. 67 of AIR):- "A notable difference in the language used in Arts. 327 and 328 on the one hand, and Art. 329 on the other, is that while the first two articles begin with the words "subject to the provisions of this Constitution", the last article begins with the words "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution". 327 and 328 on the one hand, and Art. 329 on the other, is that while the first two articles begin with the words "subject to the provisions of this Constitution", the last article begins with the words "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution". It was conceded at the Bar that the effect of this difference in language is that whereas any law made by Parliament under Art. 327, or by the State Legislatures under Art. 328, cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in regard to matters provided for in Art. 329." Reference was also made by counsel to certain other concessions which appear at pp. 233 and 237 of the report (of SCR): (at pp. 70 & 71 of AIR). It will be noted, however, that the decision in that case did not proceed on the concessions made. The Court examined at some length the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which was passed by the Parliament under Art. 327 of the Constitution to make detailed provision in regard to all matters and all stages connected with elections to the various Legislatures in the country. It was there argued that since the Representation of the People Act was enacted subject to the provisions of the Constitution, it could not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This was turned down by the Court observing:- "This argument, however, is completely shut out by reading the Act along with Art. 329(b). It will be noticed that the language used in that Article and in S. 80 of the Act is almost identical, with this difference only that the Article is preceded by the words "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution". (p. 232) (of SCR): (at p. 69 of AIR). The Court went on to observe at p. 233 (of SCR): (at p. 70 of AIR):- "It may be pointed out that Art. 329(b) must be read as complimentary to clause (a) of that Article. Clause (a) bars the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to such law as may be made under Arts. 327 and 328 relating to the delimitation of constituencies of the allotment of seats to such constituencies. Clause (a) bars the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to such law as may be made under Arts. 327 and 328 relating to the delimitation of constituencies of the allotment of seats to such constituencies. If Part XV of the Constitution is a code by itself, i.e., it creates rights and provides for their enforcement by a special tribunal to the exclusion of all courts including the High Court, there can be no reason for assuming that the Constitution left one small part of the election process to be made the subject matter of contest before the High Courts and thereby upset the time schedule of the elections. The more reasonable view seems to be that Art. 329 covers all "electoral matters". 18. An examination of SS. 8 and 9 of the Act shows that the matters therein dealt with were not to be subject to the scrutiny of any court 'of law. Section 8, which deals with the readjustment of the number of seats, shows that the Commission must proceed on the' basis of the latest census figures and by order determine having regard to the provisions of Arts. 81, 170, 330 and 332, the number of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State. Similarly, it was the duty of the Commission under S. 9 to distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State to single member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the latest census figures having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and to the factors enumerated in cls. (a) to (d) of sub-s. (1). (a) to (d) of sub-s. (1). Sub-section (2) of S. 9 shows that the work done under sub-s. (1) was not to be final, but that the Commission (a) had to publish its proposals under sub-s. (1) together with the dissenting proposals, if any, of an associate member, (b) to specify a date after which the proposals could be further considered by it, (c) to consider all objections and suggestions which may have been received before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, to hold public sittings at such place or places as it thought fit. It is only then that the Commission could by one or more order, determine the delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies as also of Assembly constituencies of each State." 7. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anugrah Narain Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,: (1996) 6 SCC 303 , wherein it has been held as under:- "29. Dealing with the provisions of the Constitution relating to panchayats contained in Articles 243-A to 243-O (which are similar to Articles 243-Q to 243-ZG relating to Municipalities), this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, held (AIR p. 1528: SCC p. 331, paras 44 and 45) "It is for the Government to decide in what manner the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area will be delimited. It is not for the Court to indicate the manner in which the same would be done. So long as the panchayat areas and conformity with the constitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof, the Courts cannot interfere with the same. What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them." xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 34. Moreover, the U.P. Act of 1959 was amended to make it consistent with the provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution. 'Population' was defined in Section 2(53-A) to mean "population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published." This is identical to the definition given in Article 243-P(g). Section 32 which deals with the delimitation, inter alia, provides that the State Government shall by order determine the number of seats to be reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and for women. Section 7 lays down that in every Corporation, seats shall be reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes. There is a second provision to Section 7 which lays down that if the figures of backward classes are not available, their population may be determined by carrying out a survey in the manner prescribed by the rules. These provisions come within the ambit of the phrase "any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies." The validity of this law cannot be challenged because of the protection given by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. Therefore, the question whether the survey made by the State Government to ascertain the figures of persons belonging to backward classes was lawful or not cannot be raised in any Court." 8. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,: (2017) 13 SCC 500 , wherein it has been held as under:- "7. As aforesaid, any attempt to do so would inevitably upset the ratio of reservation of seats for women in the other Electoral Divisions where the election process is complete. In other words, accepting the petitioners' prayer in the writ petition at this stage would result in creating an imbalance in that ratio, which will be in violation of the letter and spirit of the law. For that reason, we decline to interfere in this petition and leave it open to the petitioners to pursue any other remedy as may be permissible by law. The same will have to be decided in accordance with law. For that reason, we decline to interfere in this petition and leave it open to the petitioners to pursue any other remedy as may be permissible by law. The same will have to be decided in accordance with law. We make it clear that in the peculiar facts of the case on hand, we do not intend to express any view on the correctness of the issue canvassed before us by either side and we leave all questions open." 9. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that as per Article 243T of the Constitution of India, the State could prescribe the manner for reserved posts of Chairpersons in the Municipalities. 10. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., : (2010) 7 SCC 202 , wherein it has been held as under:- "8. The overarching scheme of Article 243-D and 243-T is to ensure the fair representation of social diversity in the composition of elected local bodies so as to contribute to the empowerment of the traditionally weaker sections in society. The preferred means for pursuing this policy is the reservation of seats and chairperson positions in favour of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), women and backward class candidates: • Article 243-D(1) and Article 243-T(1) are analogous since they lay down that the reservation of seats in favour of SC and ST candidates should be based on the proportion between the population belonging to these categories and the total population of the area in question. Needless to say, the State Governments are empowered to determine the extent of such reservations on the basis of empirical data such as population surveys among other methods, thereby being guided by the principle of "Proportional representation". • Article 243-D(2) and Article 243-T(2) further provide that from among the pool of seats reserved for SC and ST candidates, at least one-third of such seats should be reserved for women belonging to those categories. Hence, there is an intersection between the reservations in favour of women on one hand and those in favour of SCs/STs on the other hand. Hence, there is an intersection between the reservations in favour of women on one hand and those in favour of SCs/STs on the other hand. • With respect to reservations in favour of women, Article 243-D(3) and Article 243-T(3) lay down that at least one-third of the total number of seats in the local bodies should be reserved for women. On the face of it, this is an embodiment of the principle of "adequate representation". This idea comes into play when it is found that a particular section is inadequately represented in a certain domain and a specific threshold is provided to ensure that this section of the population comes to be adequately represented with the passage of time. • With regard to chairperson positions, Article 243-D(4) and Article 243-T(4) enable the State legislatures to reserve these offices in favour of SC, ST and women candidates. In the case of panchayats, the first proviso to Article 243-D(4) states that the aggregate number of chairperson positions reserved in favour of SC and ST candidates in an entire state should be based on the proportion between the population belonging to these categories and the total population. With all the chairperson positions at each level of the panchayats in an entire State as the frame of reference, the second proviso to Article 243-D(4) states that one-third of these offices should be reserved for women. The third proviso to Article 243-D(4) lays down that the number of chairperson positions reserved under the said clause would be allotted by rotation to different panchayats in each tier. This rotational policy is a safeguard against the possibility of a particular office being reserved in perpetuity. It is pertinent to note that unlike the reservation policy for panchayats, there are no comparable provisos to Article 243-T(4) for guiding the reservation of chairperson positions in Municipalities. This is a notable distinction between the otherwise analogous schemes prescribed in Article 243-D and Article 243-T. • It is also pertinent to take note of Article 243-D(5) and Article 243-T(5), both of which provide that the reservation of seats and chairperson positions in favour of SC and ST categories would operate for the period contemplated under Article 334. It must be stressed here that there is no such time-limit for the reservations made in favour of women, implying that they will operate in perpetuity. It must be stressed here that there is no such time-limit for the reservations made in favour of women, implying that they will operate in perpetuity. • Article 243-D(6) and Article 243-T(6) contemplate the power of the State Legislatures to reserve seats as well as chairperson positions in favour of a "backward class of citizens". Unlike the aforementioned provisions that deal with reservations in favour of SC, ST and women candidates, Article 243-D(6) and Article 243-T(6) do not explicitly provide guidance on the quantum of reservations. In the absence of any explicit criteria or limits, it can be assumed that reservation policies contemplated under Article 243-D(6) will ordinarily be guided by the standard of proportionate representation. xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 72. In the case of urban local bodies, Article 243-T(4) also enables reservation of chairperson posts in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. However, there are no further specifications to guide the reservation of chairperson positions in urban areas. While it is not possible for us to ascertain the legislative intent behind the same, one can perhaps theorize that there was an assumption that the intended beneficiaries are in a relatively better-off position to overcome barriers to political participation in urban local bodies, when compared with rural local bodies. xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 82. In view of the above, our conclusions are: (i) The nature and purpose of reservations in the context of local self-government is considerably different from that of higher education and public employment. In this sense, Article 243-D and Article 243-T form a distinct and independent constitutional basis for affirmative action and the principles that have been evolved in relation to the reservation policies enabled by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) cannot be readily applied in the context of local self-government. Even when made, they need not be for a period corresponding to the period of reservation for the purposes of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), but can be much shorter. (ii) Article 243-D(6) and Article 243-T(6) are constitutionally valid since they are in the nature of provisions which merely enable the State Legislatures to reserve seats and chairperson posts in favour of backward classes. Concerns about disproportionate reservations should be raised by way of specific challenges against the State Legislations. (ii) Article 243-D(6) and Article 243-T(6) are constitutionally valid since they are in the nature of provisions which merely enable the State Legislatures to reserve seats and chairperson posts in favour of backward classes. Concerns about disproportionate reservations should be raised by way of specific challenges against the State Legislations. (iii) We are not in a position to examine the claims about over breadth in the quantum of reservations provided for OBCs under the impugned State Legislations since there is no contemporaneous empirical data. The onus is on the executive to conduct a rigorous investigation into the patterns of backwardness that act as barriers to political participation which are indeed quite different from the patterns of disadvantages in the matter of access to education and employment. As we have considered and decided only the constitutional validity of Articles 243-D(6) and 243-T(6), it will be open to the petitioners or any aggrieved party to challenge any State legislation enacted in pursuance of the said constitutional provisions before the High Court. We are of the view that the identification of "backward classes" under Article 243-D(6) and Article 243-T(6) should be distinct from the identification of SEBCs for the purpose of Article 15(4) and that of backward classes for the purpose of Article 16(4). (iv) The upper ceiling of 50% vertical reservations in favour of SC/ST/OBCs should not be breached in the context of local self-government. Exceptions can only be made in order to safeguard the interests of Scheduled Tribes in the matter of their representation in panchayats located in the Scheduled Areas. (v) The reservation of chairperson posts in the manner contemplated by Articles 243-D(4) and 243-T(4) is constitutionally valid. These chairperson posts cannot be equated with solitary posts in the context of public employment." 11. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Tinu) & Ors., : (2009) 4 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held as under:- "40. Be that as it may, neither Article 243-T of the Constitution nor Section 10(5) of the Haryana Municipal Act provide for any reservation to the office of the President in favour of any candidate who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Backward Class. Be that as it may, neither Article 243-T of the Constitution nor Section 10(5) of the Haryana Municipal Act provide for any reservation to the office of the President in favour of any candidate who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Backward Class. Obviously there cannot be any such reservation of seats in Municipalities nor to the office of Chairperson in favour of candidates belonging to general category. There is no separate category like general category. The expression "belonging to the general category" wherever employed means the seats or offices earmarked for persons belonging to all categories irrespective of their caste, class or community or tribe. The unreserved seats euphemistically described as general category seats are open seats available for all candidates who are otherwise qualified to contest to that office." 12. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the reserved posts of Chairpersons, Municipalities were being allotted in terms of Section 43 of the Act. So far as notification dated 13.10.2020 is concerned, the same was merely clarificatory and the same was liable to be upheld. 13. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit & Ors., : (2006) 9 SCC 90 , wherein it has been held as under:- "67. Ordinarily, a subordinate legislation cannot be given a retrospective effect. The notification dated 05.07.2005, however, is said to be clarificatory in nature. A clarificatory notification can be given retrospective effect. Such a clarification, according to the State, was necessary to be issued as there was an apparent conflict between the Hindi version and the English version of the notification." 14. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that moreover, for the present election, offices on the basis of reservation of Chairpersons, Municipalities were allotted by way of lottery. 15. Such a clarification, according to the State, was necessary to be issued as there was an apparent conflict between the Hindi version and the English version of the notification." 14. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that moreover, for the present election, offices on the basis of reservation of Chairpersons, Municipalities were allotted by way of lottery. 15. Article 243D, Clause (4) of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "243D Reservation of Seats.- (4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the village or any other level 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: Provided that the number of offices of Chairpersons reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayats at each level as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State: Provided further that not less than one third of the total number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for women: Provided also that the number of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level." 16. Article 243T of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "243T. Reservation of seats. (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 to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx (4) The offices 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." 17. Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities. xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx (4) The offices 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." 17. Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities. (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the State Election Commission referred to in article 243K. (2) Subject to provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities." 18. Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." 19. Article 329 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- "Article 329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-[Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution] (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature." 20. A perusal of Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution of India reveal that they deal with reservation of seats of Panchayat and Municipality respectively. A perusal of Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution of India reveal that they deal with reservation of seats of Panchayat and Municipality respectively. So far as reservation of Chairperson of Panchayat is concerned, it has been specifically provided that number of offices reserved under Clause (4) of Article 243D of the Constitution of India would be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level, whereas, Clause (4) of Article 243T of the Constitution of India provides that offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the legislature of a State may, by law, provide. 21. In this regard, Section 43 of the Act reads as under:- "43. Every Municipality to have a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson- (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxx (3) The offices of Chairpersons of Municipalities shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes as also for women in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) The State Government shall allocate the offices of Chairpersons reserved under sub-section (3) to different Municipalities in the State and in allocating such offices regard shall be had to the following provisions, namely:- (i) Municipalities in which office is reserved for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall be distributed throughout the State and located as far as practicable in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large; (ii) the Municipalities in which office is reserved for women shall be distributed throughout the State. (5) The reservation of the office of the Chairpersons for the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes under this section shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334 of the Constitution of India. xxxxxxxxxxx" 22. Thus, as per the above provision, the offices reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall be distributed throughout the State and located as far as practicable in those areas where proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large. Although, other States have adopted allotment of reserved posts of Chairpersons, Municipalities on the basis of rotation system, but so far as State of Rajasthan is concerned, the reservation is to be followed as per Section 43(4)(i) of the Act. Although, other States have adopted allotment of reserved posts of Chairpersons, Municipalities on the basis of rotation system, but so far as State of Rajasthan is concerned, the reservation is to be followed as per Section 43(4)(i) of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom has formed policy that the areas where proportion of population of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is more, the office of Chairperson of the Municipality may be reserved. The policy formulated by the State cannot be said to be unreasonable or unfair. Article 243T of the Constitution of India requires that reservation should be made for the post of Chairpersons, Municipalities for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and keeping in view the said provision, the State has provided reservation for the posts of Chairpersons in Municipalities. Section 43 of the Act is being followed by the State while allotting office of Chairperson, Municipality. The said provision was never challenged earlier and is being followed in every election held prior to the present election. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellants have failed to convince us that the provision of Section 43, Clause (4) of the Act is illegal or unjust. By framing this provision, State has duly complied with the mandate of the Constitution. 23. As per notification dated 20.10.2019 for reservation of post of Chairman of 196 Municipal Corporations caste wise and women reservation based on 1/3rd, a lottery was conducted on 20.10.2019 in presence of Secretary, Local Self Government, etc. and thereafter the reservation for the post of Chairman of Municipalities including newly constituted Municipalities was announced. Thus, every constituency got a fair and an equal chance. Hence, the petitioners cannot allege any discrimination. 24. Election process has already started. Out of 196 Municipalities, election has already taken place in 55 Municipalities. 25. Thus, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed as the offices of Chairpersons of Municipalities reserved under Sub-section (3) of Section 43 of the Act were being allotted in terms of provisions of Section 43 of the Act and from the impugned notification dated 20.10.2019, it is evident that for reservation of posts of Chairman of 196 Municipal Corporations caste wise and women reservation based on 1/3rd, a lottery was conducted on 20.10.2019 in presence of Secretary, Local Self Government, etc. and thereafter the reservation for the post of Chairman of Municipalities including newly constituted Municipalities was announced. Moreover, the election process has already started and no justification is made out for interference by this court. Petition Dismissed