Ravindrakumar Vs. Government of Karnataka and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the petitioners’ grievance is that the post of the mayor of the mysore city corporation ought to have been reserved for a corporator belonging to scheduled tribe (st). 2. sri. h. kantharaja, the learned counsel for the petitioner in w.p. no.7618 of 2012 submits that the impugned notification dated 25-2-2012 reserves the post in question for scheduled caste-woman (sc(w)). he complains of the violation of section 10(1-a) of the karnataka municipal corporations act, 1976 (‘the said act’ for short). he also takes exception to the reserving of the posts of only deputy mayor in the entire state and that too 5 times. there is no reason why there should not be any reservation for the post of mayor. he complains of the prejudice against the people belonging to the st. 3. the prayer of the petitioner in w.p.no.8068 of 2012 is for a direction to the respondent to reserve the post in question in favour of st(w). sri praveen raikote, the learned counsel appearing for the said petitioner submits that the reservation roaster and rotation are not being done objectively. in the last 15 years or so, not even once the post in question is earmarked for st(w). 4. sri n.b. vishwanath, the learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the roaster and rotation are being done strictly in accordance with section 10(1-a) of the said act. he submits that no grounds are made out for the interference of this court. he would justify what the respondents have done. 5. the allotment of the post to a particular category is indeed a vexed and cumbersome exercise. there has to be proportional representation to different categories of sc, sc(w), st, st(w), bca, bca(w), bcb, bcb(w), g, g(w). the government also has to ensure that there is no immediate repetition of the reservation category. in such an exercise, absolute arithmetical precision cannot be expected, but the allotment of the seats has to reflect the distributive strategy and the inclusive approach. the allotment of the seats to different enumerative categories has to be fair and balanced. annexure-r1 filed with the government’s counter states that the people belonging to st constitute 6.6% of the total population in the state. as of now thee are 8 corporations. each corporation has a mayor and a deputy mayor. there are thus 16 posts. if there are 16 posts and the st population percentage is 6.6, the entitlement of the people belonging to st as rightly worked out by the government is as follows: 16 x 6.6/100 = 1. 6. the government has rightly worked out and concluded that for every 16 seats, one has to go to the st category. 7. on specifically asking, as to how many corporations were therefrom 1995 and how many times the elections took place to the posts of mayor and deputy mayor, the learned additional government advocate answers, on instructions from the concerned officer, who is present in the court, that there were 6 corporations from 1995 to 2004, 7 corporations in 2005 and 8 corporations from 2008 onwards. no elections took place in 2006 and 2007. the scenario that would emerge is as follows:- sl.no.yearno. of corporationsno. of mayor and deputy mayor1.19956122.19966123.19976124.19986125.19996126.20006127.20016128.20026129.200361210.200461211.200571412.2006no elections13.2007no elections14.200881615.200981616.201081617.2011816total198 8. when it is not in dispute that the reservation for st is 6.6% as per annexure-r1, the applicable reservation for 198 posts is to be worked out as follows.- 6.6/100 x 198 = 13.068. it is rounded off to 13. 9. it is not in dispute that from 1995 to 2008 sts are given only 6 posts as against their entitlement of 13 posts. but the question is in which corporation the reservation for st or st(w) has to be given. 10. the change of roster in one urban body may have cascading effect on the roster in the reservation arrangement in other urban local bodies (corporations). it is therefore not advisable to quash the impugned notification reserving the post of mayor and deputy mayor of mysore corporation for corporators belonging to sc(w) and bca. the government has to take a call on the issue and set right the things. 11. the ends of justice would be met by my directing the petitioners to give the representations to the respondent 1 forthwith and in any case within 2 days from today. the respondent 1 is directed to consider the same within 3 days from the date of the receipt of the representations. the petitioners’ anticipated representations would be considered meaningfully and in the letter and spirit of annexure-r1 to the government’s counter. 12. the notification commencing the election process shall be issued only after the respondent 1 completes the reconsideration exercise and passes the order on the petitioners’ anticipated representations. 13. both the petitions are accordingly disposed of. no order as to costs.

Judgment:

1. The petitioners’ grievance is that the post of the Mayor of the Mysore City Corporation ought to have been reserved for a Corporator belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST).

2. Sri. H. Kantharaja, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.7618 of 2012 submits that the impugned notification dated 25-2-2012 reserves the post in question for Scheduled Caste-Woman (SC(W)). He complains of the violation of Section 10(1-A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (‘the said Act’ for short). He also takes exception to the reserving of the posts of only Deputy Mayor in the entire State and that too 5 times. There is no reason why there should not be any reservation for the post of Mayor. He complains of the prejudice against the people belonging to the ST.

3. The prayer of the petitioner in W.P.No.8068 of 2012 is for a direction to the respondent to reserve the post in question in favour of ST(W). Sri Praveen Raikote, the learned Counsel appearing for the said petitioner submits that the reservation roaster and rotation are not being done objectively. In the last 15 years or so, not even once the post in question is earmarked for ST(W).

4. Sri N.B. Vishwanath, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the roaster and rotation are being done strictly in accordance with Section 10(1-A) of the said Act. He submits that no grounds are made out for the interference of this Court. He would justify what the respondents have done.

5. The allotment of the post to a particular category is indeed a vexed and cumbersome exercise. There has to be proportional representation to different categories of SC, SC(W), ST, ST(W), BCA, BCA(W), BCB, BCB(W), G, G(W). The Government also has to ensure that there is no immediate repetition of the reservation category. In such an exercise, absolute arithmetical precision cannot be expected, but the allotment of the seats has to reflect the distributive strategy and the inclusive approach. The allotment of the seats to different enumerative categories has to be fair and balanced. Annexure-R1 filed with the Government’s counter states that the people belonging to St constitute 6.6% of the total population in the State. As of now thee are 8 Corporations. Each Corporation has a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor. There are thus 16 posts. If there are 16 posts and the ST population percentage is 6.6, the entitlement of the people belonging to ST as rightly worked out by the Government is as follows: 16 x 6.6/100 = 1.

6. The Government has rightly worked out and concluded that for every 16 seats, one has to go to the ST category.

7. On specifically asking, as to how many Corporations were therefrom 1995 and how many times the elections took place to the posts of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the learned Additional Government Advocate answers, on instructions from the concerned officer, who is present in the Court, that there were 6 Corporations from 1995 to 2004, 7 Corporations in 2005 and 8 Corporations from 2008 onwards. No elections took place in 2006 and 2007. The scenario that would emerge is as follows:-

Sl.No.	Year	No. of Corporations	No. of Mayor and Deputy Mayor
1.	1995	6	12
2.	1996	6	12
3.	1997	6	12
4.	1998	6	12
5.	1999	6	12
6.	2000	6	12
7.	2001	6	12
8.	2002	6	12
9.	2003	6	12
10.	2004	6	12
11.	2005	7	14
12.	2006	No elections
13.	2007	No elections
14.	2008	8	16
15.	2009	8	16
16.	2010	8	16
17.	2011	8	16
TOTAL		198

8. When it is not in dispute that the reservation for ST is 6.6% as per Annexure-R1, the applicable reservation for 198 posts is to be worked out as follows.-

6.6/100 x 198 = 13.068. It is rounded off to 13.

9. It is not in dispute that from 1995 to 2008 STs are given only 6 posts as against their entitlement of 13 posts. But the question is in which Corporation the reservation for ST or ST(W) has to be given.

10. The change of roster in one urban body may have cascading effect on the roster in the reservation arrangement in other urban local bodies (Corporations). It is therefore not advisable to quash the impugned notification reserving the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Mysore Corporation for Corporators belonging to SC(W) and BCA. The Government has to take a call on the issue and set right the things.

11. The ends of justice would be met by my directing the petitioners to give the representations to the respondent 1 forthwith and in any case within 2 days from today. The respondent 1 is directed to consider the same within 3 days from the date of the receipt of the representations. The petitioners’ anticipated representations would be considered meaningfully and in the letter and spirit of Annexure-R1 to the Government’s counter.

12. The notification commencing the election process shall be issued only after the respondent 1 completes the reconsideration exercise and passes the order on the petitioners’ anticipated representations.

13. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.