AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is calling in question the notification dated 18.01.2010, which is impugned at Annexure-B to the petition.
By the said notification, out of two seats which is available for Lingavarahatti, one seat has been assigned to Schedule Tribe while the other is assigned to backward class ''A''. The petitioner contends that the said reservation is not in conformity with the rotation prescribed. It is contended that even in the earlier election in the year 2005, one seat had been assigned to backward class ''A'' and therefore, there is repetition. It is therefore contended that the one seat ought to have been assigned either to back ward class ''B'' to the general category or any other category instead of repeating the same to backward class ''A''. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for interference with the said notification.
The learned Government Advocate by placing reliance on the objection statement would point out that in the earlier elections for the year 2000, in respect of Lingavarahatti, the reservation had been given to general category. In respect of elections in the year 2005 also, one seat was given for general and backward class ''A''. Keeping that in view, presently it has been rotated by giving of one seat to Schedule Tribe. Insofar as backward class B'', in the last election, it was given to Thoparamalige and same is now been rotated to Hosakalahalli. Therefore, as far as possible, rotation has been maintained.
In the light of the above, insofar as the manner in which the seats had been assigned in the last two elections as well as this election, it is not in dispute. Therefore, keeping this aspect in view, it is seen that insofar as Lingavarahatti in the year 2000, one seat has been assigned in general category out of the two seats. In the elections in the year 2005; one seat was assigned to backward ''A'' and other was for general. Hence, keeping this aspect in view, in the present election, the seat has been assigned to schedule tribe and backward class ''A''.
Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that one seat should have been assigned to backward class ''B'', the same cannot be accepted since the said seat has been rotated in the manner stated above. Since in the earlier two elections it had been repeated to general, in any case, in the present election it could not have been granted to general. To that extent, even though it has been repeated for backward class ''A'', it cannot be said that it is so glaring keeping in view the total number of seats that is available for the reservation of category since the same have been rotated keeping in view the number of seats assigned to different constituencies. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned notification.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of. No order as to costs.