JUDGMENT- N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J. :---By order dated 4-10-1995, Collector, Ahmednagar reserved Chairmanship of Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar for the category of backward class of citizens including Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribes. This was on the basis of the lots drawn in presence of the officers and the representatives of the political parties in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Collector on 29-9-1995. This order came to be challenged in Civil Suit bearing No. 585 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Ahmednagar. An application for interim relief was also filed. The learned Civil Judge rejected the prayer for the interim relief. In Misc. Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1995 which is still pending before the learned District Judge, 5th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar was pleased to reject the prayer for the interim relief seeking stay of election of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar. This Revision challenges the Judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Ahmednagar and the order passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar. 2.Shri A. H. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that a procedure has been laid down by Part II of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (President, Vice President and Chairman of Sub Committees) and Panchayat Samities (Chairman and Deputy Chairman) (Election) (Amendment) Rules, 1995, as to how the seat of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is to be reserved and Rule 2 E speaks about Government's power to specify number of offices of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti in the State reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and category of Backward Class of Citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes and Women (including the women belonging to such Castes, Tribes and the Backward Classes). Rule 2F provides for manner of allotment and rotation of offices while making such reservation. According to Shri Joshi, sub rule 2(a), 3(a), 4(a) and 5(a) providing for the reservation of the post of Chairmanship excludes all such Panchayat Samitis from being considered for replacement in the rotation of reservation wherein atleast two seats are reserved for the category for which the chairmanship is to be reserved. According to him, this is one of the basic requirements in the absence of which, reservation will neither be legal nor justifiable. According to him, this is one of the basic requirements in the absence of which, reservation will neither be legal nor justifiable. Shri Joshi states position that there is no seat reserved in the Panchayat Samiti of Ahmednagar for Backward Class is because of the fact that law which was applicable at a time when the election of Panchayat Samiti had taken place did not provide any such reservation in favour of Other Backward Class. But according to Shri Joshi if the reservation roster would have been properly made and the chairmanship is not reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes wherein at least two members of that category have not been allotted reserved seat in the membership of Panchayat Samiti, then the whole roster would have been changed and it is likely that Ahmednagar Constituency would not have been reserved for other Backward Class community. Pointing to this eventuality, he submits that the whole election process would go waste in view of the fact that the rules framed have not been strictly followed by the Respondent Collector. 3.Shri Kishor Patil learned Assistant Government Pleader, defending order of the Collector, pointed out that the challenge to the allotment and distribution of seats of reservation for the chairmanship of the Panchayat Samiti is not questionable in any Court by virtue of the protection granted to it by Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Shri Patil further submitted that the provisions of sub-article (B) of Article 243-O are anomolous to the provisions of Article 329(B) of the Constitution of India whereby elections are permitted to be challenged only once and that too by an election petition provided for. 4.According to Shri Patil, the process of election is on and need not be interferred into by way of any interim relief which the plaintiff - petitioner is praying in this proceeding.Shri Dixit, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7, contended that in a revision petition under section 115, the discretion exercised by the Civil Court and confirmed by the District Judge need not be interferred particularly to stall the process of election. 5.Shri Dixit relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Kshettra Samiti and others)1, 1995 Supp (2) S.C.C. 305 canvassed that the allotment of reservation in different Panchayat Samiti passed by the Collector on the basis of the lots drawn as provided by Rules of 1995 is also law within the meaning of Article 243-O relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or allotment of seats of such constituencies and, therefore, cannot be questioned in any Court. 6.Before I consider submissions made by the learned Counsel, we will have to be remembered that it would not be appropriate for the courts to interfere with the election process even in election wherein Article 329(B) of the Constitution is not applicable. In (S.T. Muthusani v. K. Natarajan and others)2, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616 considering allotment of the symbol in panchayat election under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 Supreme Court disapproved interference in the process of the election. Though the bar created by the provisions of Article 329 may or may not be applicable to a particular election, objections regarding the election after the process has started should not be allowed to intervene and the process of the election stalled. 7.Admittedly, from May 1995 the post of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar is vacant. A notice calling members of Ahmednagar Panchayat Samiti to be present at the special meeting to elect Chariman on 17-11-1995 is issued on 4-11-1995 and, therefore, process of the election has started from 4-11-1995. Interim relief in terms of staying this process is, therefore, not warranted. 8.The points raised by Shri Joshi though of importance, need not be considered in this revision application since the consideration of any challenge to the election would be barred by virtue of the bar created by Sub-Article B of Article 243-O since the process of the election is on. The points raised can well be raised in an election petition as is permissible by law. 9.I, therefore, reject this Civil Revision Application summarily with no order as to costs. Revision application rejected. *****