- (1.) The petitioner has instituted this writ proceeding amongst other reliefs that the direction be issued to the respondents to vacate the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sentakheda, District Rampur and hold a fresh selection for the said post. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 6.9.2018 has passed a detailed order. The relevant part of the orders reads as under: ".....Apex Court in the case of Poorapati Mariya Das Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Sewa Samajan and others 2009 7 SCC 387 where the Apex Court in paragraph 39 and 40 observed as hereinunder. "39. Shri Gupta then contended that there was no opportunity for the writ petitioners to challenge the caste as the application filed by them for cancellation of the caste before the authority under the 1993 Act was never decided. It was pointed out that such application was filed on 18.4.2006 and various representations were also made to various authorities. We are not concerned with the various representations made to any other authority. However, if an application under Section 5 of the 1993 Act was made to the proper authority it was bound to be enquired into. However, taking the advantage that it was not decided for four months, the writ petitioners could not have rushed with the writ petition. At the most, the writ petitioners could have asked for a direction to the said authority for deciding that application one way or the other. That was not done. If that application had been decided upon and the authority concerned had found that the appellant's caste certificate itself was false and fraudulent and he did not genuinely belong to the Scheduled Caste then that itself could have been enough for the appellant to lose the post that he was elected to. 40. In our opinion, it is necessary to get examined the caste certificates of all the elected persons from reserved constituencies within a time-frame to avoid such controversies. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the High Court clearly erred firstly, in entertaining the writ petition, secondly in going into the disputed question of fact regarding the caste status, thirdly, in holding that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and fourthly, in allowing the writ petition."
(2.) The Apex Court held that the High Court could not have undertaken this task itself but further observed that if the caste certificate itself was found to be false then in that case the matter could have proceeded on the strength of such a declaration by the competent authority. In other words if the caste certificate stood cancelled as per the observations made by the Apex Court then a writ of quo-warranto would become maintainable and this is what has been further held by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Bharati Reddy versus State of Karnataka and others 2018 6 SCC 162 paragraphs 32 to 39 and 41. Having perused the aforesaid judgment in the case of Bharati Reddy (Supra) we are prima facie satisfied that the cancellation of the caste certificate of the respondent no. 6 brings about a basic ineligibility in her candidature, and if the respondent no. 6 does not belong to the schedule caste category she was not entitled to contest the elections or get herself elected. This cause of action therefore, has arisen after the cancellation of the certificate and therefore it can not be said that the aggrieved person has necessarily to file an election petition. Keeping in view the observations made in the case of Bharati Reddy (Supra) about the issuance of a notice in a writ of quo-warranto as referred to hereinabove we find this case to be a fit case in which notices deserve to be issued to the respondent no. 6 for the reasons aforesaid.
(3.) Accordingly let steps be taken for issuance of notice to the 6th respondent within 3 days by Dasti summons as well as by normal mode of service through registered speed post. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notices for respondents no. 1 to 5.;