HC go ahead for draw of lots for PS chief quota

The stage has been cleared for conducting a draw of lots to decide the reservations for the panchayat samiti chairmen in Nagpur district
after the district administration agreed to abide by its July 30 decision in the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Monday.
The decision to this effect was made by deputy returning officer Avinash Katade, and it was communicated to the court by government pleader Nitin Sambre. A division bench comprising justices Dilip Sinha and FM Reis then disposed of the petition filed by Nanda Pohankar and Lata Bhange, both panchayat samiti members from Bhiwapur.
The petitioners had challenged the procedure of conducting the draw of lots for panchayat samiti chairmen through their counsel Anand Parchure last week. According to them, the administration conducts draws for finalising reservation for panchayat samiti chiefs based on rotation system. It is done according to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Rules 1962, reserving posts for persons belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward category (OBC) and women. The Nagpur collector had on November 18 announced beginning of this procedure for 13 posts of samiti chairmen on November 21 at Bachat Bhavan of district collectorate.
The petitioners claimed that as per a July 31, 2004, state government GR, the post for chairman of Bhiwapur panchayat samiti was reserved for women from OBC category. However, another member Sandhya Dhanvijay had challenged it in the high court, on which the court had given an interim order reserving that posts for SC/ST. As a result, Dhanvijay became chairmen of the samiti.
The government again came out with a new draw of lots for reserving seats by rotation on July 30 this year, where Bhiwapur was once again reserved for SC. As per the petitioners, they were the sole candidates in that category from Bhiwapur and hence eligible for becoming Samiti chairpersons.
However, the collector issued a letter on November 18 calling for fresh draw of lots stating that the July 30 draw was not as per the court's interim orders. Therefore, the petitioners were demanding a stay on this draw stating that July 30 draw should be preferred.