Repeat Of OBC Reservation In Mayor Post Before SC Reservation Not Violation Of Rotation Policy As Per Maharashtra Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which had quashed a notification issued by the Maharashtra Government to reserve the post of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation to candidate belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) category.

The High Court, in its judgment delivered on May 7 this year, had observed that the OBC reservation was repeated for the second term without providing reservation for Scheduled Caste and hence it violation the policy of rotation.

Disagreeing with the High Court's opinion, the Supreme Court observed that given the number of municipal corporations in the State of Mahrashstra, it was possible that there will be repeat of OBC reservation in Mayor post even before the turn for SC reservation occurs, and this by itself cannot be termed as violation of rotation policy as per the Maharashtra law.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai referred to Article 243T of the Constitution (which stipulations reservation of seats in municipalities), Section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations  Act, 1949 and Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Offices of Mayors) Rules, 2006.

The Supreme Court noted that there are 27 posts of mayors in municipal corporations in the State of Maharashtra. 1 is reserved for Scheduled Tribes, 3 are reserved for Scheduled Castes and 7 are reserved for Backward Class.

From 2003 to 2017, the Office of  Mayor of the Dhule Corporation was reserved for Backward Class category for two terms (2006 and 2014), out of the total 7 terms. When the draw of lots for the SC reservation was done after 2019 elections, Dhule Municipality was considered. However, in the said draw of lots, 3 other Corporations got selected for SC reservation.

As far as OBC reservation is concerned, the draw of lots was done from the pool of 16 Corporations after excluding the 7 Corporations which were reserved for Backward Class of Citizens in the immediately preceding term and the 4 Corporations which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The Supreme Court said that the High Court's view that until reservation is provided to each category by rotation  same reservation cannot be applied twice was untenable.

"... taking into consideration the fact that the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes are 3 whereas for Backward Class of Citizens, they are 7 i.e. more than twice, it is quite probable that the post of Mayor could be reserved for two earlier terms for Backward Class of Citizens and whereas no reservation is provided for Scheduled Castes", the Court observed.

It said that to interpret the Rule in a manner that until reservation is provided for each category by rotation, the said office cannot be reserved for a category for which it was already reserved, will be to defeat the legislative intent.

"We find that such a situation is bound to occur in view of the difference in number of seats, reserved for Scheduled Castes and Backward Class of Citizens. If the interpretation as placed is to be accepted then unless the post of Mayor is reserved for Scheduled Tribes in all the Corporations to complete the rotation, it will not be possible to provide reservation for the categories which were already reserved earlier", the judgment authored by Justice Gavai stated.

Court has to prefer an interpretation which makes the statute workable

The Supreme Court observed in its judgment that the Court must prefer an interpretation which makes a statute workable.

"The interpretation which gives effect to the intention of the legislature, will have to be preferred. The interpretation which brings about the effect of result, will have to be preferred than the one which defeats the purpose of the enactment", Justice Gavai wrote in the judgment.

"At the cost of repetition and particularly taking into consideration the difference in number of seats for Scheduled Castes and Backward Class of Citizens, we find that the interpretation as placed by the High Court, would not make the said Rules workable and give effect to the legislative intent. It would have been a different matter that even after completion of the cycle, requisite reservation as per the Rules is not provided to the Scheduled Castes and excessive reservation is provided for Backward Class of Citizens. Such is not the case", the judgment added.

In this connection, the Court noted that the Dhule Municipality was in the zone of consideration for SC reservation but it failed in the draw of lots. Only after that, it was included in the OBC reservation poll. It had to be included in the OBC pool, given the number of municipalities available.

Reliance on Karnataka High Court judgment wrong

The High Court had relied on a judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case M. Abdul Azeez v. State of Karnataka and Others, which held that repeated reservation to particular category before other categories are given allotment was a violation of rotation policy.

In this regard, the Supreme Court noted that the Karanata Rules were different from the Maharashtra Rules as they provided that the reservation can be repeated only after a cycle was complete.

Case Title : Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay and others

Bench : Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice BR Gavai

Appearances : Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora & Advocate Braj Kishore Mishra for appellants; Advocate Sachin Patil for State of Maharashtra; Advocate  Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar for respondent.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 412

Click here to read/download the judgment