JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---We are principally concerned in these two writ petitions with the interpretation of the amended provisions of section 67(5) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and the rules framed thereunder providing for reservation to the posts of Chairperson in the Panchayat Samitis for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of Citizens and women. These provisions are enacted by the State Legislature in order to carry out the constitutional mandate of Article 243-D of the Constitution of India as inserted by the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution. The short question which falls for our determination is this: When the post of Chairperson of a Panchayat Samiti is reserved for category of Other Backward Class woman, a member who got elected from woman general category at the Panchayat elections is eligible to contest for the post of Chairperson even if she belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC). 2.The facts giving rise to these petitions are simple and may be shortly stated. The elections to the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti area were held on 2nd March, 1997. Out of 14 seats of Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti, 3 seats were reserved for the Scheduled Castes, of which one was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman. One seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribe and 4 seats were reserved for Other Backward Class. Out of the 4 seats which were reserved for Other Backward Class category, one seat was reserved for Other Backward Class woman. Then 3 seats were reserved for women general and the remaining 3 seats were general seats. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 977 of 1997 Smt. Mangal Kachru Korde, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, contested elections from Loni Khurd Other Backward Class woman constituency and declared elected. Smt. Kavita Vithal Raut, the respondent No. 4 in the said petition got elected from one of the three women general constituencies, namely, Nipani-Wadgaon constituency. (For the sake of convenience she will be hereafter referred to as the respondent No. 4) 3.On 4th March, 1997 the Collector of Ahmednagar issued a notice convening a meeting of the Panchayat Samitis for electing Sabhapati (Chairperson) of Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti. It seems that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 filed their nomination papers for the post of Sabhapati. It seems that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 filed their nomination papers for the post of Sabhapati. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 4 was elected from woman general category and as far as the petitioner is concerned, she was elected from the constituency reserved for OBC woman. Naturally, the question arose as to whether the respondent No. 4, who got elected from general category, is entitled to contest the election of Sabhapati which was reserved for O.B.C. woman category. On 12th March, 1997, the Deputy Secretary, Rural and Water Conservation Department issued an order directing that, if the post of Chairperson in the Panchayat Samiti is reserved for a particular category and if the candidate belongs to that category, he should be allowed to contest the election even if he is elected at the Panchayat election from some other category. 4.At this point it is necessary to state that in the meanwhile the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the effect of Article 243-T(4), which is analogue to Article 243-D(4) in the context of similar provisions of the Haryana Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder in (Saraswatidevi v. Smt. Shanti Devi others)1, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 347. The Supreme Court held that when a seat of President of the Municipal Council was reserved by rotation for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes women category, a candidate elected from the ward reserved for Scheduled Caste woman shall be entitled to contest for the Presidentship and the candidate elected from general category is not entitled to contest such election even if she happens to be a Scheduled Caste woman. 5.The petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 977 of 1997. On 13th March, 1997 the Division Bench (Coram: Mane Barde, JJ.) admitted the petition and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 12th March, 1997. It seems that the Division Bench was of the prima facie view that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Saraswatidevi's case (supra). On 13th March, 1997 the Division Bench (Coram: Mane Barde, JJ.) admitted the petition and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 12th March, 1997. It seems that the Division Bench was of the prima facie view that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Saraswatidevi's case (supra). On 13th March, 1997 the Deputy Secretary, Rural and Water Conservation Department issued a fresh order in view of the interim order passed by the Division Bench directing that when the post of Chairperson is reserved for a particular category, the member who got elected from that category at the Panchayat election alone will be entitled to contest the election to the post of Chairperson. Having regard to the order dated 13th March, 1997 issued by the Secretary, the nomination paper filed by the respondent No. 4 was rejected. Since the petitioner was the only validly nominated candidate, she was declared elected as Sabhapati of Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti. The respondent No. 4 has impugned the election of the petitioner to the post of Sabhapati by filing Writ Petition No. 1199 of 1997 which is in the nature of cross petition. 6.Now it is both convenient and advisable to read at this stage Article 243-D of the Constitution. "243-D: Reservation of seats.--- (1) Seats shall be reserved for, (a) the Scheduled Castes; and (b) the Scheduled Tribes, in every Panchayat and the number of seats so, reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in that Panchayat area or of the Scheduled Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under Clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide: Provided that the number of offices of Chairpersons reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayats at each level as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State; Provided further that not less than one-third of the total number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for women; Provided also that the number of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level. (5) ................ (6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Panchayat or offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at any level in favour of Backward Class of citizens." 7.On a plain reading of Article 243-D it is seen that sub-Articles (1), (2) and (3) of Article 243-D provides for reservation of seats in every Panchayat for Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women. Sub-Article (4) states that the offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the State Legislature by law may provide. The aforesaid constitutional mandate makes it clear that the Chairmanship of Panchayats would be made available by rotation as provided by the State Legislature to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women. The aforesaid constitutional mandate makes it clear that the Chairmanship of Panchayats would be made available by rotation as provided by the State Legislature to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women. Sub-Article (6) says that nothing shall prevent the State Legislature from making any provisions for reservation of seats in any Panchayat or offices of Chairperson in the Panchayat at any level in favour of Backward Class of citizens. 8.In pursuance of Article 243-D, section 67(5) was inserted by the Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1994 providing for reservation to the posts of Chairpersons in the Panchayat Samitis. "67(5) There shall be reservation in the office of the Chairman in the Panchayat Samitis for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of citizens and women as follows :--- (a) the number of offices of Chairman to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayat Samitis shall bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayat Samitis as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes, in the State excluding the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayat Samitis comprising entirely the Scheduled areas bears to the total population of the State; Provided also that, one-third of the total number of offices so reserved shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be Scheduled Tribes; (b) the offices of Chairman to be reserved for persons belonging to the category of Backward Class of citizens shall be 27 per cent of the total number of such offices in the Panchayat Samitis; Provided that, one-third of the offices so reserved shall be reserved for women belonging to category of Backward Class of citizens; (c) one-third of total number of offices of Chairman (including the number of offices reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the category of Backward Class of citizens) in the Panchayat Samitis shall be reserved for women." 9.At this point it is necessary to read the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (President, Vice-President and Chairmen of Subjects Committees) Panchayat Samitis (Chairman Deputy Chairman) (Reservation of Offices and Election) Rules, 1962. Rule 2-E provides for reservation of offices for election of Chairman of Panchayat Samitis and reads thus : "2-E. Reservation of Offices for election of Chairman of Panchayat Samitis.---Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 67 of the Act, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the number of offices of Chairman of Panchayat Samitis in the State to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) and woman (including the women belonging to such Castes, Tribes and the category.) ......................" 10.Rule 2-F provides for the manner of allotment and rotation of offices of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, Backward Class of citizens and women. "2-F. Manner of allotment and rotation of offices of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes:--- (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, allot the offices of Chairmen to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the scheduled Tribes, the category of Backwards Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes), and women as specified under Rule 2-E to districts as follows : (a) The offices to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in each district shall be allotted in such manner that such reservation shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of offices of Chairmen in the District as the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in that District bears to the total population of that District; (b) The offices to be reserved for category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) in each District shall, as far as practicable, be allotted in proportion of twenty seven percent of the total number of offices of Chairman in that District. (c) The offices to be reserved for women (including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) in each District shall as far as practicable, be allotted in proportion of one third of the total number of offices of Chairman in that District. (2).......... (c) The offices to be reserved for women (including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) in each District shall as far as practicable, be allotted in proportion of one third of the total number of offices of Chairman in that District. (2).......... (3)(a) The Collector shall, by order distribute and notify, the offices to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes in a descending order beginning with the Panchayat Samiti where the percentage of population of such castes with the total population of the area of such Panchayat Samiti is the highest; .................... (4) (a) The Collector shall, by order distribute and notify the offices to be reserved for the category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) by drawing lots amongst the Panchayat Samitis in the Sub-Division in that District; .................. (5) (a) The Collector shall, by order distribute and notify the offices to be reserved for the women (including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the category of Backward Class citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) by drawing lots amongst the Panchayat Samitis in sub-division of the District : .......... (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if the office of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti is reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or as the case may be, Backward Class of Citizens including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes and no elected member, belonging to such Castes or Tribes or Backward Class of Citizens including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes is available, then such office may be, de-reserved for the same tenure and may be filled in from amongst the elected members." 11.It is against this background of the scheme and the object of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, we must now consider the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the post of Sabhapati, which is reserved for O.B.C. woman category, can be filled in only by the member elected from the constituency reserved for O.B.C. woman candidate at Panchayat elections. It was submitted by Mr. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the post of Sabhapati, which is reserved for O.B.C. woman category, can be filled in only by the member elected from the constituency reserved for O.B.C. woman candidate at Panchayat elections. It was submitted by Mr. Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 having not been elected from the constituency reserved for O.B.C. woman category, she is not eligible to contest the election for the post of Sabhapati. Mr. Hon placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Saraswatidevi's case. Mr. Hon submitted that the order dated 12th March, 1997 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Rural and Water Conservation Department is contrary to the scheme of reservation providing for the post of Sabhapati of Panchayat Samitis under the provisions of the Act and the Rules read with Article 243-D(4) of the Constitution. Mr. Kadam, learned AGP supported the submissions of Mr. Hon. He stated that the State Government is of the opinion that the order dated 12th March, 1997 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Rural and Water Conservation Department was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In the opinion of the State Government the modified order issued by the Deputy Secretary on 13th March, 1997 is in consonance with the scheme of the Act and the Rules. He submitted that the Returning Officer therefore rightly rejected the nomination of the respondent No. 4. Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, however, submitted that the scheme of the Maharashtra Act is different and under the said scheme a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste or Other Backward Class is entitled to contest the reserved post of Sabhapati even if he or she was not elected from that category of Panchayat elections. Mr. Dhorde urged that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to contest the election of the Sabhapati and, therefore, the Returning Officer was not right in rejecting her nomination paper. 12.Thus the only question which falls for our consideration is whether the respondent No. 4, who got elected from women general category, is entitled to contest the election for the post of Sabhapati which is reserved for the category of Other Backward Class woman. In our opinion, the point is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Saraswatidevi's case. In our opinion, the point is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Saraswatidevi's case. It will be convenient to note the facts in Saraswatidevi's case. Article 243-T(4) of the Constitution which is similar to Article 243-D(4) provides for reservation to the posts of Chairperson of the Municipal Councils. Pursuant to the mandate given by Article 243-T(4), the Haryana State Legislature enacted necessary provisions for reservation to the posts of President of Municipal Councils for Scheduled Castes, Backward Class and women. It seems that the Local Government Department of Haryana Government vide its notification dated 20th January, 1995 declared in terms of Rule 70(4) of the Election Rules that the seat of President, Municipal Committee, Loharu, inter alia, shall be filled up from amongst the members belonging to Scheduled Castes category. The appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 before the Supreme Court were Scheduled Caste women. It seems that for election to the Municipal Committee, Loharu Municipal area was divided into 11 wards, out of which three wards were reserved for members belonging to Scheduled Castes. Out of these three wards, ward No. 5 was reserved for the Scheduled Caste women and ward No. 2 was reserved for Backward Classes. In the elections the appellant was elected from ward No. 5 reserved for Scheduled Caste women while the respondent No. 1 was declared elected from ward No. 11 which was reserved for general women. After the said elections were over, questions arose about the election of the President of the said Municipal Committee. It seems that the respondent No. 1 contended that as she was also elected member belonging to Scheduled Caste women category, she was entitled to contest for the Presidentship of the Municipality. After the said elections were over, questions arose about the election of the President of the said Municipal Committee. It seems that the respondent No. 1 contended that as she was also elected member belonging to Scheduled Caste women category, she was entitled to contest for the Presidentship of the Municipality. In view of this claim of the respondent No. 1, the Local Government Department of Haryana Government vide its order dated 11th February, 1995 issued under section 278 of the Haryana Act clarified that where there is a single member of Scheduled Caste category (man or woman) in a Municipality elected from the ward reserved and the office of the President is to be filled up from amongst the members belonging to Scheduled Caste category, such single candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President of such Municipalities in the same manner as is provided for the members belonging to the Backward Classes under sub-rule (4) of Rule 70 of the Election Rules. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing the aforesaid Government order dated 11th February, 1995 and for a direction to admit her as a candidate to contest for the office of President, Municipal Committee. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1. According to the Division Bench, as there were two candidates in the field belonging to the category of Scheduled Castes women, election had to be held for the post of President. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal. 13.After examining the provisions of Article 243-T and the scheme of the Haryana Act and the Rules, the Supreme Court held that the respondent No. 1, who got elected from the category of general women is not entitled to contest for Presidentship which was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman. The Supreme Court observed : "On a combined reading of Article 243-T of the Constitution of India, section 10(5) and 18 of the Act and sub-rule (4) of Rule 70 of Election Rules, it becomes clear that the Parliament as well as the Legislature have enacted those provisions in order to provide for reservation of office of the President for members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and women in rotation. A bare reading of section 10(5) and Rule 70(4) shows that the offices of the Presidents are to be filled from amongst members belonging to different categories by rotation and by lots. It is not disputed that the post of President of Loharu Municipal Committee at the relevant time was reserved for Scheduled Castes women. So far as the appellant is concerned, she has been elected from ward No. 15, on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste women. Therefore, in that category she is the sole candidate. So far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned even though by coincidence she belongs to Scheduled Caste but she was not elected on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste women, but on a seat reserved for General category women from ward No. 11. It is not in dispute that in that ward there were other contesting women, not belonging to Scheduled Castes category but also belonging to General category. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is a member who is elected on the seat earmarked for General category women, she cannot be said to be a member elected on a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes women. In ward No. 5 from where the appellant contested, General category women could not have contested and only Scheduled Castes women could have contested and in that context appellant emerged successful. Therefore, she must be held to be belonging to category of Scheduled Castes and not belonging to category of women to which respondent No. 1 belongs. Consequently both of them cannot be treated to form a part and parcel of the same category of seats on which they have got elected. It is true as contended by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and which contention has appealed to the High Court that Rule 70(4) mandates that the offices of Presidents of the Municipalities shall be filled up from amongst the members belonging to the concerned categories mentioned in the Rule. But the said phraseology does not imply that the members must belong to a particular caste like Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, because the general word 'members belonging to' are followed by different types of classes like General category, category of Scheduled Castes, category of Backward Classes and category of women as mentioned in the said Rule. It is obvious that general category has nothing to do with castes. It is obvious that general category has nothing to do with castes. Similarly Backward classes has nothing to do with castes and the category of women is also separately indicated. That is also not having any nexus with the castes. When the thrust of the Rule is that offices of the Presidents in Municipalities must go by rotation to members belonging to specified categories, it would necessarily mean in the context of parent Article 243-T of the Constitution of India and section 10(5) of the Act that the concerned elected members of the Municipal Committee must have got elected on the seats available to General category candidates or Scheduled Castes category candidates or Backward Classes category candidates or General women category candidates by rotation. The very concept of rotation presupposes that for the contest of Presidentship once by rotation a reservation is made for members elected from a particular category only those members can contest for Presidentship. As admittedly the post of President, Loharu Municipality is subjected to double reservation of being available only to an elected member who is a Scheduled Caste woman she must have been elected on the Scheduled Castes seat from the ward reserved for such Scheduled Castes candidates. As admittedly only three wards, namely, 1, 4 and 5 are reserved for such members belonging to Scheduled Castes and even out of three wards only ward No. 5 from which the appellant was elected was reserved for Scheduled Castes women and as President's post is reserved for being filled up by a member belonging to the category of Scheduled Castes women who has been elected on such a seat, the respondent No. 1 who is elected as a member not on any seat reserved for Scheduled castes women but on a seat reserved for General category of women from ward No. 11 is obviously out of the arena of contest for the post of Presidentship of Loharu Municipality. Appellant is the sole candidate elected on the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes women. With respect it is not possible to agree with the reasoning of the High Court that the words 'members belonging to' as employed in Rule 70(4) of the Election Rules would bring in all the elected members belonging to Scheduled Castes into one category to enable them to contest for the post of President. With respect it is not possible to agree with the reasoning of the High Court that the words 'members belonging to' as employed in Rule 70(4) of the Election Rules would bring in all the elected members belonging to Scheduled Castes into one category to enable them to contest for the post of President. Such a reasoning would cut across the very scheme of reservation as envisaged by Article 243-T of the Constitution of India and section 10(5) read with Rule 70(4) of the Election Rules. The High Court with respect has not properly appreciated the thrust of the provision regarding the categories of reservation envisaged by the Rules and has equated category with castes which is not contemplated by the Act and the Election Rules. Consequently, the decision rendered by the High Court on the construction of the aforesaid relevant provisions cannot be sustained. On the other hand the Government notification and clarification dated 11th February, 1995 get well sustained on the scheme of the Act and the Election Rules. It must, therefore, be held that as respondent No. 1 and the appellant did not belong to the same category of candidates elected on the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes women even though both were women and belonged to Scheduled Castes; they represented separate electoral wards indicating non-competing groups or categories of membership and as both of them were not at par they could not contest on an equal footing for the post of President. As admittedly appellant was the sole returned candidate from the ward reserved for Scheduled Castes women and as the post of President was also by rotation reserved only for a member belonging to Scheduled Castes women category she was the sole contestant for the said post and was rightly held to be entitled to be the President of Loharu Municipality." 14.Now reverting back to the provisions of the Maharashtra Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is seen that the scheme for reservation provided therein is almost similar to the scheme under the Haryana Act. Under section 67(5), there is reservation provided for different category of classes like the category of Scheduled Castes, the category of Scheduled Tribes, the category of women and the category of Backward classes. It is clearly seen that the category of Backward Classes has nothing to do with the castes. Similarly, the category of women is also separately indicated. Under section 67(5), there is reservation provided for different category of classes like the category of Scheduled Castes, the category of Scheduled Tribes, the category of women and the category of Backward classes. It is clearly seen that the category of Backward Classes has nothing to do with the castes. Similarly, the category of women is also separately indicated. These categories have no nexus with the castes. Thus the thrust of the rule is that the office of the Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samitis must go by rotation to members belonging to specified categories. By necessary implication the concerned elected member of the Panchayat Samiti must have got elected on the seat available to the category for which reservation has been made for Sabhapati's post. The concept of rotation clearly implies that for contesting the post of Sabhapati by rotation, reservation is made for members elected from a particular category and only those members can contest for the said post. Admittedly, as far as the petitioner is concerned, she was elected from Loni Khurd constituency which was reserved for the Other Backward Class woman. Therefore, in that category, she is the sole candidate. So far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, even though she claims to belong to the Other Backward Class, she was not elected on a seat reserved for Other Backward Class woman, but on a seat reserved for General category of women from Nipani Wadgaon constituency It cannot be disputed that in that constituency there were other contesting women candidates, not belonging to Backward Class, but also belonging to General category. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 is a member who is elected on the seat earmarked for the General category of women; she cannot be said to be a member elected on a seat reserved for Backward Class woman. In Loni Khurd constituency from where the petitioner contested, the General category women could not have contested and only the Other Backward Class category could have contested and, therefore, she cannot be held to be belonging to category of Other Backward Class woman to which the petitioner belongs. Consequently both of them cannot be treated as belonging to same category of seats on which they have got elected. It is thus clearly seen that the respondent No. 4 was ineligible to contest the election of the Sabhapati of Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti. Consequently both of them cannot be treated as belonging to same category of seats on which they have got elected. It is thus clearly seen that the respondent No. 4 was ineligible to contest the election of the Sabhapati of Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti. This legal position is also accepted by the State Government as can be seen from the modified order dated 13th March, 1997. 15.In view of the foregoing discussions, Writ Petition No. 1199 of 1997 is dismissed with no order as to costs. No orders are necessary on Writ Petition No. 977 of 1997 since the petitioner is already declared elected as Sabhapati of Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti and the same is disposed of accordingly. Certified copy to be issued forthwith. Petition allowed.