RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner and three others contested for being elected to a General Seat From the v Ward of nagamangala interim mandal panchayat. In respect of reserved seat for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the same constituency one era dasaiah and another sannahudugaiah, the 5th respondent, contested, while for the woman seat reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respondents 3 and 4 contested. For the reserved constituency of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes one Smt. Thimmamma, respondent No. 3, was elected while for the woman reserved constitutency for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes one malavamma the 4th respondent was elected and from the general seat 5th respondent sannahudugaiah was elected. In this petition the petitioner is calling in question the validity of rules 28 (4) (c) and 71 (ii) (b) of the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats (conduct of election) rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) as arbitrary. As a consequence thereof the petitioner is seeking for declaration that the election of respondents 3 to 5 is illegal and improper. ( 2 ) THE contention advanced by the petitioner is that although elections have been held to multiple seats from the constituency, each seat itself will constitute a separate constituency and therefore nominations should have been treated as if they were given separately in respect of each constituency and declaration of results should also have followed that pattern as otherwise the consequence will be that both in respect of reserved seats and general seats persons who belong to reserve category can get elected thus depriving the candidates from general category from being elected. It is therefore submitted that rules 28 (4) (c) and 71 (ii) (b) of the rules are thus arbitrary. ( 3 ) AN identical question arose for consideration before the supreme court in V. V. Giri v Sun Dora, AIR 1959 SC 1318 and the Supreme Court held that in declaring the result of election in respect of a double member constituency out of which one was reserved in favour of the candidates belonging to scheduled caste among the candidates contesting for reserved seat, the candidate who secured highest votes was to be declared to the reserved seat. Thereafter any candidates including those belonging to scheduled castes whoever had secured the highest votes was to be declared to be elected to the general seat. This view is based on the principle that the intendment and significance of reservation was that every candidate belonging to reserved class is entitled to contest general seat with all and will still have certain number or percentage of seats as a guaranteed minimum reserved for them. The Provisions of the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the act) with reference to reservation or delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats in relation to a panchayat are available in Section 5. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that 25 per cent of the total number of seats shall be reserved for women and out of them one seat shall be reserved for a woman belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Sub-section (4) thereof provides for reservation of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the same proportion to the total number of seats bearing to the total population in the mandal which shall however be not less than 18 per cent of the total number of seats. Above all, the second proviso to sub-section (4) makes it clear that no woman or a member of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for whom seats have been reserved in a mandal panchayat can be prevented from standing for election from any non-reserved seats of such mandal panchayat. Thus the Section does not prevent a woman or a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe member to get elected from a non-reserved seat of any such panchayat. Rule 28 (4) prevails over all other rules by use of non-obstante clause and is applicable to cases where seats are reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women to the following effect:1) if the number of candidates for reserved seats is equal or less to the number of reserved seats all such candidates get elected. Rule 28 (4) prevails over all other rules by use of non-obstante clause and is applicable to cases where seats are reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women to the following effect:1) if the number of candidates for reserved seats is equal or less to the number of reserved seats all such candidates get elected. 2) if the number of candidates for reserved seat or seats is more than the seats to be filled but the total number of candidates contesting is equal or less than the candidates to be elected the returning officer shall select by lot the candidate to be declared to be elected to fill those seats and then declare the candidates to fill the reserved seats and thereafter declare the remaining candidates to be elected to the non-reserved seats. 3) if the number of candidates qualified to be chosen to fill reserved seats exceeds the number of such seats and total number of candidates also exceeds the total number of seats then poll shall be taken: first to declare those who are qualified to be chosen to fill reserved seats by securing highest number of votes to be elected to be elected to the reserved seat and thereafter declare such remaining candidates as have secured the highest number of votes to be duly elected to fill the remaining non-reserved seats. This position is further clear in Rule 72 (ii) (b) of the rules. In the present case we are concerned with the last of the situations. ( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the declaration made by the returning officer is in conformity with the Provisions of the rules aforesaid but the challenge is only to the validity of the said rules as being arbitrary. As explained above the Supreme Court in the case of v. v. giri, even in the absence of a Rule of the present nature, upheld the action taken by the election tribunal in that case. Once it is established that the election is from a constituency as a whole and not by reference to two separate and distinct electorates there will be no difficulty in accepting the rationale of the impugned rules. Once it is established that the election is from a constituency as a whole and not by reference to two separate and distinct electorates there will be no difficulty in accepting the rationale of the impugned rules. Merely because a member or a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or a woman member belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is entitled to contest for the reserved seat and for that purpose he or she can and must make prescribed declaration, docs not necessarily follow that because he or she claims the benefit of reserved seat and conforms to the statutory requirement in that behalf, he or she is precluded from contesting the election, if necessary, from the general scat. This position becomes clear when we read second proviso to Section 5 (4) of the act which makes it clear that it is an additional claim. The claim for eligibility for a reserved seat does not exclude the claim for a general scat and both the claims must be legal when there is election from a multiple member constituency. Therefore, when such a course is adopted by the election tribunal, even in the absence of specific Rule as is available in the present case, the same had been upheld by the Supreme Court and i fail to understand as to how the aforesaid rules can be deemed to be arbitrary. ( 5 ) THE basis of the argument that the Rule is arbitrary is a fallacy and ignores the fact that candidates belonging to reserved category can get elected to general seats as well as reserved seats inasmuch as those contesting from reserved category can also contest from general or non-reserved constituency while there is a bar for those contesting from general constituency from contesting for reserved seat. There is no challenge to second proviso to Section 5 (4) of the act. As a result i find no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner and hence Rule 28 (4) (c) cannot be declared to be invalid. ( 6 ) A fortiori, Rule 71 (ii) (b) cannot also be declared to be invalid because it merely gives effect to the Provisions of Rule 28 (4) (c) of the rules and is procedural in regard to declaration of results. ( 6 ) A fortiori, Rule 71 (ii) (b) cannot also be declared to be invalid because it merely gives effect to the Provisions of Rule 28 (4) (c) of the rules and is procedural in regard to declaration of results. Reading rules 28 (4) (c) and 71 (ii) (b) together it follows that they merely give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in v. v. giri's case. This position in law was reiterated by this court in Durga Bovi v Returning Officer, (1961 Mysore law journal 331) and again in the context of reservation of seats for backward classes in colleges in partha s. a. v State of Mysore, (1961 Mysore law journal 159 ). The principles adopted in the aforesaid decisions and the impugned rules being identical and the same having been held to be based on intelligible and rational criteria to be adopted in such matters, i find absolutely no substance in this petition. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .