JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Elections to the Village Panchayat, Sidhanath Wadgaon took place sometime in the year 1995 and a meeting of the newly elected Village Panchayat members was called on 3-9-1995 for electing Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat under Rule 2(a) of The Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. Office of the Sarpanch of village Sidhanath Wadgaon was reserved for women (general). Petitioner filed a nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of this village panchayat but her nomination paper came to be rejected by the Returning Officer since there was no signature of the proposer on the said nomination form. This fact is not in dispute. Since there was no nomination form filed by any other candidate, the post of the Sarpanch was kept vacant and the meeting proceeded for election of Upasarpanch -Shri Ransingh Sandusingh Bilwad was elected for the post of Upasarpanch. This petition challenges rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri N.J. Pahune Patil contended that since the petitioner was the only women elected from the general seat, she alone was competent to be Sarpanch of Village Panchayat. In support of this proposition, Shri Patil relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Saraswati Devi v. Smt. Shanti Devi and others)1, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 347. Shri Patil contends that though there were 3 women members in the Village Panchayat, others were elected from the reserved seat and, therefore, they were not entitled to contest and occupy seat of the Sarpanch which was reserved for women - general category. By an application for intervention, two other lady members of the Village Panchayat namely; Mathurabai Jagannath Lingayat and Smt. Sonabai w/o. Gangadhar Bhalerao have appeared before us. We have allowed their intervention and heard their Counsel, Shri K.S. Bhore. 3. Learned Counsel contends that the post is not reserved for the women who belong to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes but is a seat reserved for women - general. By a wrong interpretation though Mathurabai - Intervenor No. 1 wanted to file her nomination paper, she was not allowed to do so by the Returning Officer holding that a woman belonging to any reserved category cannot contest general seat reserved only for women. 4. By a wrong interpretation though Mathurabai - Intervenor No. 1 wanted to file her nomination paper, she was not allowed to do so by the Returning Officer holding that a woman belonging to any reserved category cannot contest general seat reserved only for women. 4. Right to contest an election is a statutory right and will have to be enjoyed within the four corners of that statute and the rules made thereunder. Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upasarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 requires that not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for the election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, any member of the Panchayat may nominate any other member for election as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch by delivering to the Presiding Officer a nomination paper completed in the form appended to these rules. Therefore, unless the name has been proposed by a proposer, no person can contest post of the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. The nomination paper appended to the rules requires that the form should be signed by the proposer alongwith other description such as name of the candidate, his address, name of the ward from which the candidate is elected as member, name of the proposer in full and the date on which the name is proposed. Second part of the form contains declaration by a candidate that he is willing to act as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village as the case may be and this declaration is to be signed by a candidate alongwith the date and the time at which the nomination paper was delivered to the Presiding Officer. 5. Purpose of the signature of the proposer is to indicate that the name of the candidate is proposed by a person who is competent to propose. It is not possible even to imagine a valid nomination without the signature of the proposer under the present election law. The contention of Shri Pahune Patil that the defect is not of a substantial character and, therefore, the nomination paper should not have been rejected cannot be accepted. The requirement of signature of the proposer is one of the essentials of a valid nomination. It is not a mere formality. Statutory right is given to the elected members of the panchayat and no person who is not a member of the panchayat can nominate anybody for the post of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. The requirement of signature of the proposer is one of the essentials of a valid nomination. It is not a mere formality. Statutory right is given to the elected members of the panchayat and no person who is not a member of the panchayat can nominate anybody for the post of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. Therefore, the requirement of signature was a mandatory one and the Returning Officer has not committed any illegality in rejecting said nomination since it was not signed by the proposer. 6. Shri Patil further contended that if there is only one elected member of the category for which the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch as the case may be is reserved, then the nomination itself would be a formality since he or she alone would be competent to hold that post. We cannot even after taking into consideration this eventuality, bye-pass mandatory requirements of the law. It is true that the members may try to defeat provision of the reservation by not signing the nomination paper as the proposer, and in such a case, the reservation itself would be rendered meaningless. This is a matter for the urgent consideration of the State Government, who can amend the rules suitably and see that the purpose of the reservation is protected. It is for the State Government to decide the manner in which the member of the village panchayat of a particular category should enjoy the reservation provided for that category. We do not wish to suggest a particular mode but we wish to point out the urgency of the matter. Various rules in respect of the reservation in the village panchayat have created practical difficulties in the working of the village panchayat and the Election Commission and the State Government should be alive to their responsibility in looking to these practical difficulties and come out with solutions. If the reservations are to be made and till the period they are there, the benefit of those reservations will have to be given to the categories for which the reservations are made. It is statutory duty of the Election Commission and the State Government to look for anomalies, which we do not want to list in this judgment and take proper steps. 7. It is statutory duty of the Election Commission and the State Government to look for anomalies, which we do not want to list in this judgment and take proper steps. 7. Our attention was invited by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to a circular issued by the Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation on 18-8-1995 and is addressed to all the Collectors. This is an answer to some of the points raised by Collectors. Points No. 3 is as under -- "If there is a reservation for the post of Sarpanch in the village Panchayat and there is only one member elected from that category in the said panchayat and if he could not get proposer for his nomination, then whether such nomination should be accepted as valid." The answer given by the State Government is as follows -- "In such an eventuality, post of the Sarpanch should be kept vacant and meeting should continue to elect Upa-Sarpanch." This can hardly be any answer to the query raised by the Collector. Not only this but the answer is contrary to the purpose for which reservations are made. If the reservation is made in favour of a category and the other majority members do not allow that candidate to hold post by filing valid nomination, then keeping the post vacant is to defeat the purpose for which legislation was made. We are sorry that the State Government wanted to interpret rule in this manner. 8. We do not wish to go into dispute raised by Intervenor No. 1 - Mathurabai that she had filed application but her nomination was not accepted even by the Returning Officer since we are directing State Government to hold fresh elections forthwith. We do not wish to decide this disputed questions of fact. However, we wish to make it clear that whenever a post is reserved for women - general, it does not mean that the woman elected from the seat reserved for any category cannot contest this. Reservation in favour of a particular category always means that the legislature wanted to ensure that the minimum number of that category is there in the elected body. It does not limit total representation of that category. Therefore, if the posts are reserved for women, it does not mean that they cannot contest general seat. Reservation in favour of a particular category always means that the legislature wanted to ensure that the minimum number of that category is there in the elected body. It does not limit total representation of that category. Therefore, if the posts are reserved for women, it does not mean that they cannot contest general seat. Similarly if the posts are reserved for women in general category, it does not mean that the women elected from the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Category cannot contest. Candidate elected at the reserved post always has right to contest other seats but not vice-versa. Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Devi v. Smt. Shanti Devi and others (cited supra) considered question whether women who is not elected from the seat reserved for scheduled castes women can contest post of the President of the Municipal Council under the Haryana Act which is reserved for Scheduled Castes women category. Supreme Court ruled that if the post of the President of the Municipal Council is reserved for particular category, candidate who is elected as a member on the post reserved for that category alone is entitled to contest. 9. Pressing these observations in service, Shri Pahune Patil wanted to argue that since this post is reserved for women- general, only candidates elected from the women - general seat are entitled to contest the election. We are afraid that this cannot be accepted for the reason that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court is not to debar the persons belonging to the reserved category to contest general seats. We are afraid that this cannot be accepted for the reason that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court is not to debar the persons belonging to the reserved category to contest general seats. Considering case of women elected from ward reserved for women - general though herself belonging to Scheduled Caste, Supreme Court held- " 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." Therefore, whenever a person belonging to reserved class is elected on a general seat or a seat reserved generally for the women, they cannot contest post of the office bearer of that local authority if it is reserved for the women of that category since they are elected on a post reserved for a larger class. Though the State Government has made the position clear by their various circulars, we still recommend that the officer entrusted with the job of scrutinizing the nomination papers will have to be again educated in this proposition of law to avoid further litigation. 10. In the circumstance, we direct respondent No. 3 or any other officer of State Government duly empowered to call a meeting of the members of village panchayat Sidhanath Wadgaon to elect the Sarpanch for the said village panchayat since there was no election of the Sarpanch. The post shall be for the same category for which it was there last time. Meeting should be called for this election within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ. We also direct that the copies of this judgment should be sent to the Secretary of the Rural Development and Water Conservation of the Government of Maharashtra and the State Election Commissioner of Maharashtra. Subject to the above directions, writ petition stands dismissed. Interim relief granted by this Court would stand vacated on the date when the election would take place. Intervention application allowed. Rule discharged. Petition allowed with directions.