JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition by one Dulichand and Puranmal, under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that the Notification of the central Government in the Ministry of Defence, No. S. R. O. 323 dated the 2nd July, 1970, entitled as the M how Cantonment (Division into Wards)Rules, 1970, particularly, Rule 4 thereof, is ultra vires the Central Government and is also void and inoperative, being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 2. ) THE contentions of the petitioners are, firstly, that though the Cantonments Act, 1924, by section 31, empowers the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of holding of elections under the Act, and for that purpose provides for (a) the division of a cantonment into wards and (b) the determination of the number of members to be elected by each ward, there was no provision made in the Act for the reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled tastes and Scheduled Tribes; and therefore,in so far as rule 4 of the M how Cantonment (Division into Wards) Rules reserves Ward no. VII for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is in excess of the rule-making powers. There is no substance in the contention for reasons which we shall presently state. ( 3. ) EVEN prior to the inauguration of the Constitution need was felt by the Central Government for the reservation of a seat for the members of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 (g) of the Act, the Central Government framed the Cantonments electoral Rules, 1945. Rule 3 which is material for our purposes, reads- "3. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 (g) of the Act, the Central Government framed the Cantonments electoral Rules, 1945. Rule 3 which is material for our purposes, reads- "3. Division of Cantonments into Wards, the number of members to be elected by each ward and the reservation of seats tor Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in such wards:-For the purpose of election to a Board of any cantonment- (a) The wards into which that Cantonment shall be divided, (b) the extent of each such ward, (c) the number of members to be elected by each such ward, and (d) the number of seat or seats that may be reserved for the members of the scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any such ward or wards, shall be those as may be prescribed for that Cantonment by rules made by th central Government under Clauses (a) and (b) of section 31 of the Act. " ( 4. ) THE M how Cantonment (Division into Wards) Rules, 1970, provided, inter alia, (1) for the division of the M how Cantonment into Wards for the purpose of holding elections; (ii) the determination of the number of members to be elected by each ward; and (Hi) the fixation of the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes at 1, and of Ward No. VII as the seat reserved for them. While it is true that in some of the enactments dealing with local authorities such as the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities act, 1961, there is an express provision made by clause (b) of section 29 (i)thereof, empowering the State Government to frame rules in respect of the following matters: " (i) divide the municipality into wards and define the limits of each such wards (ii) fix the number of councillors to be elected for each ward; (iii) fix, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India, the number of seats to be reserved for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and allot them to the various wards. " The Cantonments Act makes no provision in respect of reservation of a seats for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Central government, accordingly, was of opinion that such provision was necessary. " The Cantonments Act makes no provision in respect of reservation of a seats for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Central government, accordingly, was of opinion that such provision was necessary. They, therefore, in exercise of their powers under section 31 (g) of the Act, framed Rule 3 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945, as well as Rule 4 of the M how Cantonment (Division into Wards) Rules, 1970. Both these sets of Rules are complementary to each other. These Rules were clearly within the Rule-making powers of the Central Government. Section 31 (g) reads as follows: "31. Power to make rules regulating elections.-The Central Government may. . . . . . . . for any cantonment. . . . . . . . make rules consistent with this Act to regulate all or any of the following matters for the purpose of the holding of elections under this Act, namely :- (g) any other matter relating to elections or election disputes in respect of which the Central Government is empowered to make rules under this Chapter or in respect of which this Act makes no provision or makes insufficient provision and provision is, in the opinion of the Central Government, necessary. " The impugned rule clearly comes within the ambit of the words "in respect of which this Act makes no provision or makes insufficient provision and provision is, in the opinion of the Central Government, necessary". These words are clear and unambiguous to clothe the Central Government with power to frame the rule in question. The first contention, therefore, fails. ( 5. ) SECONDLY, the contention is that reservation of the seat meant for ward No. VII of the M how Cantonment offends against Article 14 of the constitution. It is urged that by virtue of section 28 of the Cantonments act, 1924, every person enrolled as a voter has the right to be elected from any ward. That, therefore, according to the petitioners, is a vested right; and such right cannot be taken away by the framing of a rule. There is, in our opinion, no force in the submission. Section 28 (1) reads : "28. That, therefore, according to the petitioners, is a vested right; and such right cannot be taken away by the framing of a rule. There is, in our opinion, no force in the submission. Section 28 (1) reads : "28. Qualification for being a member of the Board.- (1) Save as hereinafter provided, every person, not being person in receipt of pay, in the military or civil service of Government, whose name is entered on the electoral roll of a cantonment shall be qualified for election as the member of the Board in that cantonment. " The opening words "save as hereinafter provided" clearly control the operative part of the section. The right to contest an election conferred by section 28 on persons whose names are entered on the electoral roll of a cantonment is subject to such restrictions as may be contained in the Act itself. Section 31 (g) is an otherwise provision. Under the terms of that section, the central Government can make a provision for the reservation of a seat for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, if in their opinion,, such a provision is necessary. The right to contest an election to the Cantonment Board is not a vested right. Such a right, of necessity, is but a creature of statute. When the Act, in terms, clothes the Central Government with the requisite power to reserve a seat for the members of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes, there is no question of any person enrolled as a voter being deprived of the right to be ejected from any ward; because such right, by its very nature, is but qualified. ( 6. ) THE contention based on Article 14 of the Constitution is wholly unfounded. Members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes form a class by themselves. A provision for reservation of seats for the backward classes in matters relating to election, can never be called in question as offending against article 14 of the constitution, By its very nature, a provision like rule 4 of the M how Cantonment (Division into Wards) Rules, 1970, must, in our opinion, be upheld on the basis that it makes a reasonable classification which has a necessary nexus with the object sought to be achieved. ( 7. ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. There shall be three sets of costs. ( 7. ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. There shall be three sets of costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/- (fifty) for each set. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners after verification. Petition dismissed.