JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the elections held to the municipality of Gohad on November 30, 1974. ( 2. ) THE point canvassed before us lies within a narrow compass. It has been contended by the petitioners that the constitution of the whole of the municipality in pursuance of the elections held on 30-11-1974 is vitiated on account of the fact that there was no proper reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes. ( 3. ) THE petition has been opposed by Shri H. G. Mishra on behalf of the non-petitioners 3, 6 to 13 and 15 as also by Shri M. C. Jain on behalf of the state of M. P. Three sets of written replies have been filed: (i) by non-petitioner 3, (ii) by non-petitioners Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 14 and (iii) by non-petitioners 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 but their pleas are identical. ( 4. ) IT is not denied by either of the parties that the elections in question were held on the basis of the population disclosed in the Census Report of 1971. According to the petitioners, the total population in 1971 residing within the municipal limits of Gohad was 14,307 out of which 3,113 were Scheduled castes, whereas, according to the non-petitioners, the total number of population was, no doubt, 14,307 but the population of scheduled castes was 2,970, besides 148 being scheduled tribes. In support of their contention, the non-petitioners have produced copy of the Census Report, 1971 (marked Annexure R-1 ). The petitioners have not filed any document in support of their assertion that the population of scheduled castes is 3,113. We do not see any reason to disbelieve the non-petitioners contention in this behalf, as it is supported by a public document, viz. , annexure R-1, We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the total population of Gohad Municipality for the purpose of holding elections in question must be taken to be 14,307 out of which 2,970 were scheduled castes. ( 5. ) IT may be relevant, here, to state that by notification dated 11th december, 197s, published in the M. P. Government Gazette dated 4-1-1974, the State Government proposed to divide the Municipality of Gohad into 12 wards and defined the limits of each such ward. ( 5. ) IT may be relevant, here, to state that by notification dated 11th december, 197s, published in the M. P. Government Gazette dated 4-1-1974, the State Government proposed to divide the Municipality of Gohad into 12 wards and defined the limits of each such ward. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the total number of Councillors for Gohad Municipality was fixed as 15 out of which 12 were to be elected from each of the 12 wards and three were to be selected. On the basis of the population of the scheduled castes, two seats were reserved for them and were allotted to wards 1 and 2. No objections having been filed to the proposal elections were ultimately held on the basis of the wards proposed. The petitioners grievance is that there ought to have been three reserved seats for scheduled castes in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India, and since this was not done the whole election is vitiated. ( 6. ) WE may now reproduce the relevant portion of section 29 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, (which will hereinafter for the sake of shortness be referred to as the Act), which has direct bearing on the question raised before us : "s. 29. Determination of number of Councillors and powers to make rules for regulating elections: (1) The State Government shall, from time to time generally or specially in respect of each Municipality, by notification- (a) determine the number of elected aid selected Councillors: provided that the number of elected Councillors shall not be less than five; (b) subject to rules framed under this Act - (i) divide the Municipality into wards and define the limits of each such ward; (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: provided that if in any Municipality the President is elected from amongst the persons who are not Councillors, the total number of Councillors determined shall, in respect of such Municipality, be deemed to have been increased by one so long as such person continues to be President thereof. * * * * ( 7. * * * * ( 7. ) REFERENCE may also be made to Rule 3 of the M. P. Municipalities (Wards) Rules, 1963 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Rules) which provides: "3. Limits of Wards:-In dividing the Municipality into wards and defining the limits of each such ward and in fixing the number of Councillors to be elected for each ward and of seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, regard shall be had to the following provisions, namely.- (a) every ward shall elect only one Councillor, (b) all the wards shall, as far as practicable, be compact areas, (c) as far as possible the number of voters in each ward shall be evenly distributed; (d) the limits of each ward shall be defined in all the four directions as follows- (i) bounded on the North by, (ii) bounded on the East by, (iii) bounded on the South by, (iv) bounded on the West by, (e) each ward shall conform to the order in which the houses of electors, paper in the electoral role of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly relatable to the ward; and (f) seats reserved either for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be allotted in the wards in which the population of the Scheduled castes or as the case may be of the Scheduled Tribes is most concentrated. " ( 8. ) THUS, according to section 29 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act, it is incumbent on the State Government to fix, in accordance with 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. Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution deal with reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the Legislative Assembly of every State, respectively- ( 9. Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution deal with reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the Legislative Assembly of every State, respectively- ( 9. ) ARTICLE 330 (2) of the Constitution reads thus : " (1) XXX (2) The number of seats reserved in any State or Union territory for the Scheduled castes or the Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union territory in the house of the people as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State of Union territory or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union territory or part of the State or union territory as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State or Union territory. (3) x x x". ( 10. ) ARTICLE 332 (3) of the Constitution is similar to Article 330 (2) and, therefore, we do not consider it necessary to reproduce it here. ( 11. ) IT is clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution that the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union territory in the House of the People as the population of the Scheduled Castes to the State or Union territory, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State or union territory. ( 12. ) ADOPTING the aforesaid standard laid down in the Constitution, the proportion of the population of the Scheduled Castes to the total population of the Municipality, Gohad comes to 4, 8 :1. ( 13. ) THE number of elected councillors fixed for the Municipality, Gohad, was 12 and three were to be selected. The question is what should be considered as the total number of seats. Shri A. B. Mishras contention is that for the purpose of fixing the proportion in the present case, the number of elected as well as selected councillors must be taken into account, i. e. , total 15. We are unable to accede to this submission. The question is what should be considered as the total number of seats. Shri A. B. Mishras contention is that for the purpose of fixing the proportion in the present case, the number of elected as well as selected councillors must be taken into account, i. e. , total 15. We are unable to accede to this submission. Section 29 (1) (a) of the Act speaks of determining the number of elected and selected councillors. The election takes place first and the elected councillors have to select the fixed number of selected councillors (vide section 19 of the Act ). Section 29 (b) (iii) provides for allotment of the reserved number of seats of the wards. Rule 3 (f) of the Rules further provides that seats reserved either for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be allotted in the wards in which the population of the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be of the Scheduled Tribes is most concentrated. Thus the reserved seats are allotted to particular wards from which election of councillors is to take place. Consequently, the question of allotment of reserved seats would arise only in respect of elected councillors and not in respect of selected councillors who will be selected by the elected councillors. ( 14. ) WE are, therefore, of opinion that for the purpose of fixing the proportion of the reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes, the total number of seats to be taken into consideration would be of the elected councillors only. Thus, for the purpose of fixing the number of reserved seats for Scheduled castes, the basis would be the total number of seats of the elected councillors which, in the present case, is 12, and the proportion of seats reserved for the scheduled Castes to the total number of seats of elected councillors would come to less than 2, 5, i. e. , two only. In this view of the matter, we are unable to hold that the elections in question are vitiated. ( 15. ) THERE is yet another aspect of the case which we would like to advert to. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for publication of the proposal for dividing the municipality into wards and defining the limits of each such ward. ( 15. ) THERE is yet another aspect of the case which we would like to advert to. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for publication of the proposal for dividing the municipality into wards and defining the limits of each such ward. As already stated above, the proposal under Rule 5 was published in the Government Gazette dated 4-1-1974. The contention of the petitioners that no such publication was made deserves to be rejected inasmuch as we have been shown the printed copy of the Gazette in which the proposal was published. A copy of the same has also been put on the record. Admittedly, no objections were filed by the petitioners to the proposal. Not only that, the petitioner 1 who belongs to Scheduled Caste also contested the election from Ward No. 12 and was defeated. The petitioner 2 also contested election from Ward No. 7 and he too lost. Thus, it is clear that both the petitioners having participated in the election and after taking chance therein, have now come forward to challenge the election after they had lost. They have thus disentitled themselves by their conduct to challenge the whole election inasmuch as they did not raise any objection to the publication of the proposal and actually took part in the election. Besides that, it is important to note that the election of the whole Municipality cannot be called into question because, what the law provides is that the reserved seats have to be allotted to the particular wards where the population of the Scheduled Castes is concentrated and taking the petitioners case at its highest, it was their duty to have shown in which ward the population of the Scheduled Castes, besides wards 1 and 2, was concentrated, so that for that particular ward reservation should have been made and that not having been done it is only the election of that ward which could be set aside. For that reason also, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. ( 16. ) THE result is that we do not find any force in this petition and hereby dismiss it with costs payable to the contesting non-petitioners 3 to 15 only. Costs are fixed at Rs. 200, if certified. The balance of the security amount may be refunded to the petitioners after deducting the amount of costs awarded. Petition dismissed.