Vandana Umesh Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 75-WP-2474-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2474 OF 2021 Smt. Vandana Umesh Jadhav

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent-State Mr A.B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 8th FEBRUARY, 2021 PER COURT :

1.

Mr Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Sarpanch for village Dhalaskheda is reserved for O.B.C. woman. There are only General and O.B.C. candidates. The respondents have not considered the reservation from the year 1995 till 2000-2025 continuously, but have only considered reservation for two years. The same is illegal.

2.

According to the learned counsel, for General Woman, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for the year 2000-2005 and thereafter, the said post was never reserved for general or O.B.C. woman. The post of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Dhalaskheda was reserved for O.B.C. woman in 2010-2015. The same ought not to be reserved for O.B.C. woman again.

2 75-WP-2474-2021 3.

We have also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr Kadethankar, learned advocate for respondent No. 2. 4.

As per the chart placed before us, from the year 1995-2000, the post of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Dhalaskheda was reserved for general category for three times and for general woman once. It was reserved for O.B.C. woman in the year 2010-2015 and now it is reserved for O.B.C. woman. The petitioner cannot have cause of grievance. Moreover, the reservation for the post of Sarpanch for the entire taluka is not placed before us. In absence of that, it would not be possible to arrive at the definite conclusion.

5.

In light of that, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] mta