Sanjay Sudhakar Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7378 Bom

                                        1                         907-WP-14440-19.odt



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.14440 OF 2019

Shri. Sanjay S/o Sudhakar Jadhav
Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddharth Nagar, Chitod Road,
Dhule, District Dhule.
                                                                 ... Petitioner

                               Versus

1. State of Maharashtra
   Through its Principal Secretary
   Urban Development Department
   Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2. Joint Secretary to the Government
   Urban Development Department
   Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

3. Additional Secretary
   Urban Development Department,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

4. Collector,
   Dhule, District Dhule.

5. State Election Commission
   Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

6. Commissioner,
   Dhule Municipal Corporation,
   Dhule, District Dhule.
                                                                 ... Respondents
                                    ...
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar h/f Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar and Vishnu B. Madan
Patil, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr. Ajit B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent No.5
Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.6
                                    ...
                                    CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
                                              M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE : 7th May, 2021

2 907-WP-14440-19.odt

JUDGMENT (Per Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) :-

1. Heard Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader for

respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, learned counsel for

respondent No.5; and Mr. Amol Sawant, learned counsel for respondent

No.6.

2. This matter was heard on 05.05.2021 and today is fied for

delivery of judgment.

3. By fling this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of notifcation dated

27.11.2019 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the Urban

Development Department in respect of Dhule Municipal Corporation at Sr.

No.22 of the schedule thereto and further seeks a direction to the

respondents to reserve the ofce of Mayor in the Dhule Municipal

Corporation for scheduled caste category.

4. Facts are not in dispute and lies within a narrow compass.

However for a proper adjudication of the lis those are briefy narrated

hereunder.

5. Petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste category and his

caste certifcate was validated by the caste scrutiny committee. He is a

social worker as well as a political activist having been elected as

Councillor of Dhule Municipal Corporation for several terms.

3 907-WP-14440-19.odt

6. Elections to the Dhule Municipal Corporation were held on

09.10.2018. Dhule Municipal Corporation comprises of 74 Councillors.

The category wise breakup of the 74 seats are as under :-

5 seats - to be elected from scheduled caste category/ scheduled caste women category.

7 seats - to be elected from scheduled tribe category/scheduled tribe women category.

20 seats - to be elected from backward class category/ backward class women category.

42 seats - to be elected from general category/general women category.

7. Though belonging to the scheduled caste, petitioner

contested the election from ward No.15-C which was earmarked for the

general category and got elected as a candidate belonging to the

Bharatiya Janata Party. Petitioner has stated that he is an aspirant for the

ofce of Mayor of Dhule Municipal Corporation.

8. Presently, the incumbent in the ofce of Mayor has been

elected from the general category. By the impugned notifcation dated

27.11.2019, the ofce of Mayor of Dhule Municipal Corporation for the

neit term of 2.5 years has been earmarked for backward class of citizens.

According to the petitioner, the ofce of Mayor in the Dhule Municipal

Corporation for the neit term commencing from about June, 2021 should

have been earmarked for the scheduled caste category. It is stated that

in the year 2003, the ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation was

kept as an open category. By the government notifcation dated

4 907-WP-14440-19.odt

23.06.2006 for the neit term the ofce of Mayor of the said Corporation

was earmarked for the backward class category. By the neit government

notifcation dated 07.05.2008, the said ofce was again kept as an open

category. Thereafter, by the notifcation dated 24.11.2009 the ofce of

Mayor was earmarked for the scheduled tribe category. For the neit

term, State Government issued notifcation dated 26.4.2012 keeping the

ofce of Mayor in the said Corporation for the open category. In the

notifcation published on 26.08.2014, the ofce of Mayor for Dhule

Municipal Corporation for the neit term was earmarked for backward

class (women) category. Finally, by the notifcation dated 27.03.2017, the

ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation was earmarked for open

category. It is in that background a contention has been raised that the

ofce of Mayor in the Dhule Municipal Corporation for the term

commencing from about June, 2021 as per impugned notifcation dated

27.11.2019, should have been earmarked for the scheduled caste

category and could not have been earmarked for backward class

category because already the ofce of Mayor in the Dhule Municipal

Corporation was earmarked for the backward class category in 2006 and

in 2014. Till date, there has been no reservation for the scheduled caste

category.

9. Hence, the present challenge.

10. Respondent no.1 has fled an afdavit-in-reply justifying

earmarking of the ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation for the

backward class category as per notifcation dated 27.11.2019.

5 907-WP-14440-19.odt

11. While learned counsel for the petitioner has elaborately

referred to the provisions of article 243-T of the Constitution of India,

section 19(1A) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949

(since renamed as Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act), Rule 3 of

the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Ofces of

Mayor) Rules, 1994 as well as Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporations (Reservation of Ofces of Mayors) Rules, 2006 and

contends therefrom that as per rotation, this time the ofce of Mayor in the

Dhule Municipal Corporation should have been earmarked for the

scheduled caste category. In the course of his arguments, he also

submitted that the ofce of Mayor should have been earmarked either for

the scheduled caste category or should have been kept in the open

category.

12. Insofar as earmarking of the ofce for open category is

concerned, we do not fnd any such prayer in the writ petition.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

following decisions in support of his contention:-

(1) Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition

No.5386 of 2006, Uday Khanderao Pawar Vs. State Election

Commission, decided on 03.10.2006;

(2) Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition

No.6389 of 2006, Prashant Bansilal Bamb Vs. State of Maharashtra,

decided on 09.02.2007; and

6 907-WP-14440-19.odt

(3) Single Bench judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition

No.38256 of 2013, M Abdul Azeez Vs. State of Karnataka, decided on

06.01.2014.

14. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 has supported the impugned

notifcation. She submits that present reservation in respect of ofce of

Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation has been carried out in terms of the

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Ofces of Mayors)

Rules, 2006, which has since replaced the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporations (Reservation of Ofces of Mayor) Rules, 1994. In support of

her submissions she has referred to the averments made in the reply

afdavit of respondent no.1 which we shall advert to in the course of the

judgment.

15. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 submit that

though the said respondents have no role to play in so far reservation in

the ofce of Mayor in the Dhule Municipal Corporation is concerned, they

would like to support the stand taken by respondent nos. 1 to 4. More

particularly they would contend that while giving efect to the provisions of

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Ofces of Mayor)

Rules, 2006, it is inevitable that there may be a case of repetition of

reservation in one or two corporations.

15.1 Submissions of learned counsel for all the respondents is

that while carrying out the reservation in the ofce of Mayor, all the

7 907-WP-14440-19.odt

corporations i.e. 27 corporations in the State of Maharashtra are required

to be treated as one unit and the percentage of reservation is required to

be calculated on the basis of percentage of the particular reserve

category in the State of Maharashtra. From that perspective, out of 27

corporations in the State of Maharashtra, there can be reservation for

scheduled caste in the ofce of Mayor in three corporations. After

drawing of lots, the three corporations have been shortlisted. In the

process Dhule Municipal Corporation got left out. This they would like to

contend is inevitable considering the very nature of reservation vis a vis

the rotation policy.

16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have

received the due consideration of the Court.

17. As is evident, the issue raised in the writ petition relates to

reservation of the ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation.

Contention of the petitioner is that as per the rotation policy, for the

present term, the ofce of Mayor should have been earmarked either for

the scheduled caste to which the petitioner belongs or to the open

category. Instead of that, the ofce of Mayor has been earmarked for the

other backward classes for which category there was already reservation

on earlier occasions. To appreciate the controversy at hand, let us refer

to the relevant legal provisions.

18. Part IXA was inserted in the Constitution of India by the

Constitution (74th amendment) Act, 1992 with efect from 01.06.1993. It

8 907-WP-14440-19.odt

deals with the municipalities. As per Article 243Q, there shall be

constituted municipalities in every State in accordance with the provisions

of Part IXA. In terms of Article 243Q (1)(c), there shall be constituted in

every State a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area in accordance

with Part IXA. Article 243T deals with reservation of seats. This article

being relevant, the same is eitracted hereunder:

"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 flled 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 diferent 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.

(3) Not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be flled by direct election in every Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to diferent constituencies in a Municipality.

(4) The ofces 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 ofces of Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under Clause (4) shall cease to have efect on the eppiration of the period specifed in article 334.

9 907-WP-14440-19.odt

(6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality or ofces of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour of backward class of citizens."

19. From the above, it is evident that while clause-1 says that

seats shall be reserved for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes

in every municipality as per their proportion to the total population which

seats may be allotted by rotation to diferent constituencies in a

municipality, on the other hand, clause-4 states that ofces of

Chairpersons in the municipalities shall be reserved for scheduled castes,

the scheduled tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a

State may by law provide. As per clause-6, nothing in Part IXA shall

prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for

reservation of seats in any municipality or ofce of Chairpersons in the

municipalities in favour of backward class of citizens.

20. The erstwhile Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations

Act, 1949 has since been renamed as the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporations Act. As per the preamble, it is an act to provide for

establishment of municipal corporations for all larger urban areas eicept

that of greater Mumbai in the State of Maharshtra with a view to ensure

better municipal governance. Section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporations Act provides for election of Mayors and Deputy Mayors from

amongst the Councillors in the corporation. As per sub-section (1A),

there shall be reservation for the ofce of Mayor in the corporation by

10 907-WP-14440-19.odt

rotation for scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, women and backward

class of citizens in the prescribed manner. This subsection was inserted

in the parent Act with efect from 31.05.1994. Sub-section (1A) of section

19 reads as under:

"(1A) There shall be reservation for the ofce of the Mayor in the Corporation, by rotation, for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Women and the Backward class of citizens, in the prescribed manner."

21. In the eiercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1A)

of section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act and other

related provisions, State of Maharashtra had framed the Maharashtra

Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Ofces of Mayor) Rules, 1994.

Rule-3 dealt with reservation of ofces for the election of Mayor. While

sub-rule 1 laid down the principles whereby the ofce of Mayors in the

municipal corporations in the State of Maharashtra to be reserved for

scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward class and women were to

be carried out. Sub-rule 2 provided that the State Government by

notifcation in the ofcial gazette should allot by draw of lots the ofces of

Mayors to be reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward

class and women on the principles specifed in sub-rule 1. As per the

third proviso clause-c, the ofces of Mayor to be so reserved should be

rotated in such a manner that no reservation made in previous terms is

repeated.

22. It may be mentioned that by notifcation dated 14.11.2006

11 907-WP-14440-19.odt

issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the Urban Development

Department, in eiercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1A) of

section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act and such other

powers and in supersession of the eiisting rules, Government of

Maharashtra has made the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations

(Reservation of Ofces of Mayors) Rules, 2006 (briefy the 2006 Rules

hereinafter). Rule 3 of the 2006 Rules is relevant and the same is

eitracted hereunder:

"3. Reservation of ofces for the election of Mayor-(1) The State Government shall, by notifcation in the Ofcial Gazette, specify the number of ofces of Mayors in the Municipal Corporations in the State to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of Citizens and Women (including the women belonging to the category of Backward Class of Citizens) on the following principles:-

(a) The number of ofces of Mayors to be so reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the number of such ofces in the Corporations in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal Corporation areas bears to the total population of all Municipal Corporation areas:

Provided that, such ofce of Mayor may not be so reserved, if the number of Councillors to be elected at ward elections from the category of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is less than three:

Provided further that, while specifying such reservation one- third of the total number of seats so reserved shall be reserved for the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes:

Provided also that, in a Municipal Corporation, where only

12 907-WP-14440-19.odt

one ofce of the Councillor is reserved for the Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes, then it shall not be necessary to reserve the ofce for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes;

(b) As nearly as may be, twenty-seven per cent of the total number of ofces of Mayors in the State shall be reserved for the category of Backward Class of Citizens:

Provided that, one-third of the ofces so reserved shall be reserved for Women belonging to the category of Backward Class of Citizens;

(c) One-third of the total number of ofces of Mayors in the State (including the number of ofces reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the category of Backward Class of Citizens) shall be reserved for women. (2) The State Government shall,-

(a) By notifcation in the Ofcial Gazette, allot by draw of lots, the ofces of the Mayors to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of Citizens and Women, on the principles specifed in sub-rule (1).

(b) Ensure that, at any given point of time, the number of ofces of Mayors, reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of Citizens and Women shall not be less than the number determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1).

(c) The lots in respect of women belonging to a particular category shall be drawn only among the ofces of Mayors reserved for such category.

(d) While drawing lots, the ofce of Mayors reserved for such category in the earlier years shall be epcluded from the draw of lots for those categories;

(e) The ofces of Mayors to be reserved shall be rotated in the subsequent terms of ofce of Mayor to such Corporation, in which no reservation has been made in the previous terms until such reservations are given by rotation to each category."

13 907-WP-14440-19.odt

22.1. From a perusal of the above, we fnd that as per sub-rule 1,

the State Government is required to specify the number of ofces of

Mayors in the municipal corporations in the State to be reserved for

scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward class and women by

following the principles mentioned therein. As per clause-a, the number

of ofces of mayor to be so reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled

tribes shall bear as nearly as may be the same proportion to the number

of such ofces in the corporations in the State as the population of

scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes in the municipal corporation

areas bears to the total population of all municipal corporation areas. As

per the frst proviso, such ofce of Mayor may not be so reserved if the

number of Councillors to be elected from the category of scheduled

castes or scheduled tribe is less than three. As per sub-rule 2, the State

Government shall by notifcation in the ofcial gazette allot by draw of lots

ofces of Mayors to be reserved for the scheduled castes, scheduled

tribes, backward class and women following the principles specifed in

sub-rule 1. Clause-d of sub-rule 2 clarifes that, while drawing of lots, the

ofce of Mayor reserved for such category in the earlier years shall be

eicluded from the draw of lots for those categories. Clause-e says that

the ofce of Mayor to be reserved shall be rotated in the subsequent

terms of ofce of Mayor in which no reservation has been made in the

previous term until such reservations are given by rotation to each

category.

14 907-WP-14440-19.odt

23. Having noticed the above and the relevant legal provisions,

we may revert back to the reservations efected in the ofce of Mayor in

Dhule Municipal Corporation till date. Petitioner has mentioned the same

by way of a statement in paragraph 19 which has not been controverted

or disputed by the respondents. The statement reads as under:

   Sr.                   Period                     Reservation
  Nos.
    1.               05/08/2003                  General Category
    2.               23/06/2006              Backward Class Category
    3.               07/05/2008                  General Category
    4.               24/11/2009                  Scheduled Tribe
    5.               26/04/2012             General Category (Women)
    6.               26/08/2014          Backward Class Category (Women)
    7.               27/03/2017                  General Category

24. By way of the impugned notifcation dated 27.11.2019, the

State Government has earmarked the ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal

Corporation at serial no.22 for backward class of citizens. From the

statement eitracted above, we fnd that for backward class, already the

ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation was reserved in 2006 and

again in 2014. If that be so, then reservation for backward class category

should have been eicluded while considering reservation in the ofce of

Mayor of Dhule Municipal Corporation by way of the impugned notifcation

dated 27.11.2019.

25. Respondent no.1 in her afdavit has stated that draw of lots

for reservation in the ofce of Mayor for municipal corporations in the

State of Maharashtra was held on 13.11.2019. While carrying out

15 907-WP-14440-19.odt

reservations in the ofce of Mayors by way of rotation, principles laid

down in Rule 3(1) in the 2006 Rules were followed. In so far reservation

for scheduled castes is concerned, three ofces of Mayor were required to

be so reserved out of which two are for women. It is stated that for

scheduled castes, three ofces of Mayor are required to be mandatorily

reserved. Out of 27 corporations, ofces of Mayor in 12 corporations

were reserved for scheduled castes in previous years. These 12

corporations along with Vasi-Virar Corporation were eicluded from the

consideration of scheduled caste reservation. The remaining 14

corporations were considered which included the Dhule Municipal

Corporation. Through draw of lots, three corporations out of 14 i.e. Mira-

Bhayender, Ahmednagar and Parbhani have got reservation for

scheduled castes. In so far reservation for backward class in Dhule

Municipal Corporation is concerned, respondent no.1 has eiplained the

situation in the following manner:

"(c) For Backward Class of Citizens 7 posts of Mayor needs to be mandatorily reserved and it is clearly mentioned that out of 27 Corporations 26 Corporations, epcluding newly created Panvel Corporation were reserved for Backward Class of Citizens in earlier years. As 26 Corporations were reserved for Backward Class of Citizens in earlier years, for the draw of lots dated 13.11.2019 even the minimum required 7 Corporations were not available, which were not previously reserved for Backward Class of Citizens. And considering this fact and the provisions in the Act and Rules the 7 Corporations which were reserved for Backward Class of Citizens in the earlier years, i.e. immediately preceding term, were epcluded in the draw of lots dated 13.11.2019.

By following the laid procedure the 4 Corporations

16 907-WP-14440-19.odt

which are reserved in the 1st and 2nd draws for Scheduled Tribes (1 Corporation) and Scheduled Castes (3 Corporations) in the current draw of lots and 7 Corporations which were reserved for Backward Class of Citizens in the immediately preceding term, are epcluded and the remaining Corporations including Dhule Corporation are considered for this draw and in the draw the 7 Corporations are reserved for Backward Class of Citizens."

25.1. After the draw was carried out on 13.11.2019, respondent

no.1 issued letter dated 14.11.2019 to the State Election Commission and

thereafter issued the notifcation dated 27.11.2019.

26. We are not convinced as to how Dhule Municipal Corporation

got reservation for backward class though there was reservation for such

category in 2006 as well as in 2014. Till date, there has been no

reservation for scheduled castes but this is not refected in the impugned

notifcation dated 27.11.2019.

27. The concept of reservation by rotation has been eiplained by

a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M.

Abdul Azeez (Supra). There also the challenge was to reservations in the

ofce of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons in various municipal

corporations and councils. Learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High

Court eiplained the principle of reservation by rotation in the following

manner:

"Rotation means something which moves in a circular order. 'Rotate' means to cause to turn in a circle. The principle of rotation, in the contept of the above two provisos, means that

17 907-WP-14440-19.odt

the ofces reserved for each of the reserved categories required to be allotted by rotation in a circular order among the Municipalities of a particular kind till the said category is represented in all the Municipalities of that kind and allotment to the said category cannot be repeated in any Municipality till a cycle of rotation is completed. When a particular reserved category is represented in all the Municipalities of a particular kind, it would complete one cycle of rotation for that category and thereafter, a fresh cycle of rotation for that category shall commence. Every reserved category has to have an independent cycle of rotation. Every such cycle shall be independent of its previous or the succeeding cycle. Before completion of one cycle of rotation for a reserved category as epplained above, if allotment to that category is repeated in any Municipality, it would be violative of the principle of rotation and such allotment is illegal and is liable to be set aside. This is the principle of rotation intended by the Legislature under the two provisos referred to above. The object of rotation is to provide representation to each of the reserved categories to the ofces of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons in all the municipalities. I may add that to complete a cycle of rotation in respect of a particular reserved category, it may take only one circular movement or several circular movements among the municipalities of a particular kind like CMCs, TMCs etc. depending upon the total number of ofces reserved for that category in the State and the number of municipalities of that kind in the State. Several circular movements may become necessary due to several other reasons also. For eg., during a circular movement, when no candidate belonging to a particular reserved category is available in a municipality, then the allotment shall go to the nept municipality in line in the circular order. Another epample is, when a rule requires that both the ofces in a Municipality shall not be allotted to the same category. There may be many such valid reasons for bypassing a Municipality and to go to the nept in line available in the circular order or to go to a

18 907-WP-14440-19.odt

previous one which was bypassed earlier for any valid reason. This all depends upon the order of rotation laid down by the Rules framed in this behalf by the State Government. But under no circumstance, 'repetition' is permissible i.e. allotment of the ofce for the same reserved category for the second time in a Municipality before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation. Any 'repetition' would be contrary to the principle of rotation."

27.1. After holding so, Karnataka High Court went ahead and

declared that if there is any allotment to any reserved category for the

second time in a municipality before completion of a cycle of rotation, it

would be a clear violation of the principle of rotation. It was held as

follows:

"12. An elementary test to fnd out as to whether the principle of rotation is violated or not, is to epamine as to whether any allotment to a reserved category is repeated in any Municipality before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation for that category. If there is any allotment to any reserved category for the second time in a Municipality before completion of a cycle of rotation or before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation for that category, it would be a clear violation of the principle of rotation."

28. We are in respectful agreement that the views eipressed by

the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Obviously in so

far reservation in the ofce of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation is

concerned, already on two earlier occasions there were reservation for

backward class. Repeating such reservation again for the current time

would certainly be a violation of the rotation principle. This coupled with

19 907-WP-14440-19.odt

the fact that there has been no reservation till date for the scheduled

caste category. This aspect needs to be seriously looked into by

respondent no.1. Therefore, we are inclined to remand the matter back to

respondent no.1 for a fresh consideration.

29. Consequently and in the light of the above, we set aside the

impugned notifcation dated 27.11.2019 in respect of Dhule Municipal

Corporation at serial no.22. The matter is remanded back to respondent

no.1 to consider afresh the issue relating to reservation in the ofce of

Mayor in the Dhule Municipal Corporation having regard to the

discussions made above. Reconsideration so directed shall be carried

out by respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. Till the said eiercise is

carried out and notifed, status-quo as on today as regards ofce of Mayor

in Dhule Municipal Corporation shall be maintained.

30. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms,

however, there shall be no order as to costs.

 [M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]                             [UJJAL BHUYAN, J.]




Mujaheed//