SHIMLA: In a significant judgement, High Court of Himachal Pradesh On Monday dismissed a petition challenging election of Sunita Kumari,  elected unanimously for the post of President of Municipal Council Dehra, District Kangra who had won the election of a ward member on   the SC category.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur passed this order on a petition filed by one Sunita Sharma. The judgement is significant as it has raised social 

The facts of the case are that petitioner Sunita Sharma and respondent Sunita Kumari are elected Members of Municipal Council Dehra.

Petitioner contested election from Ward No.6 Shiv Mandir against a seat reserved for Women (General Category), whereas respondent contested election from Ward No.3 Hanuman Mandir, allocated for General Category.

It is undisputed that respondent Sunita Kumari belongs to Scheduled Caste category.

The elections for Municipal Council Dehra were conducted from 10.1.2021 onwards. The  petitioner and respondent were declared elected as the ward members from their respective Wards.

Thereafter, election for the Office of President/Chairperson of Municipal Council Dehra, which was reserved for Women belonging to General Category was conducted on 18.1.2021.

In this election,  the respondent Sunita Kumari, Member from Ward No.3, was elected unanimously for the post of President.

The grievance of the petitioner was that respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste category, whereas post of President/Chairperson was reserved for Women belonging to General Category.

It was the claim of the petitioner that post reserved for Woman of General Category means a post reserved for all women, but excluding the women belonging to reserved category.

The Counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that seats meant for General Category are to be filled only by candidates elected on the seats reserved/meant for General Category.

When an Office has been reserved for women belonging to General Category, it means that such reservation for General Category is in exclusion of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes women.

Thus respondent being a women belonging to a Schedule Caste cannot contest for the seat or Office reserved for women belonging to the General Category.

On the other hand, it was contended by the counsel for respondents that the post of President in the present case, was reserved for “women” and respondent Sunita Kumari, being a woman, is entitled to contest the election from any Ward open for all.

The fact of her belonging to a Scheduled Caste category cannot come in her way for contesting election for the post meant for “general category” or “women belonging to general category”.

After hearing counsels for the parties at length and going through the record of the case, the Court found that reservation is for women but not for General Category. ‘General Category’ means ‘all’ and ‘reservation for all’ makes no sense.

Thus the Court observed that appropriate meaning of ‘General Category’ is open for all.

The Court further observed that the thought behind providing reservation is that weaker section of society, nourished with medicine of reservation, shall, one day, become equal in status with equal opportunity of growing and living in the society.

Reservation is not a quota provided to the sections of the society by dividing the society in Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes and General Categories in exclusion of rest from every category.

But a special provision or measure to ensure achievement of Constitutional Goal of equality of status with dignity to all sections of the society.

The Court held that the cases related to reservation are to be adjudicated in historical and social background. The conditions prevailing as on date in the society, but not on the basis of pseudo-equality and ‘unequals cannot be treated as equals’.

The Court further held that a man or a woman belonging to reserved category can contest election for a seat meant for General Category as well as reserved category.

Such person shall also be entitled to contest the election of Member or Office of President/Chairperson of the Municipality in either capacity.

The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is misconceived and is not sustainable.

The Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed the same.