ORDER The petitioner is challenging the Notification dated 27-11-2006 produced vide Annexure-H issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, notifying the reservation in favour of different categories for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in respect of different Grama Panchayats coming within Chennagiri Taluk of Davanagere District. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the impugned notification, the reservation for the post of Adhyaksha for the Kondadahalli Grama Panchayat is made in favour of Scheduled Caste which would in effect result in reservation being made in favour of woman candidate. It is the contention of the petitioner that the post of Adhyaksha has been reserved on more than one occasions in favour of the woman candidate. 3. Out of the elected members of the Panchayat, a lone candidate who is elected as Scheduled Caste candidate is a lady and if the post of Adhyaksha is reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste candidate, it will necessarily go in favour of a woman which tantamounts to again reserving the post in favour of a woman candidate is the argument. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B.M. Siddappa drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-J the order dated 3-3-2005 issued by the State Election Commission submits that there cannot be reservation in favour of a woman candidate for successive periods in respect of a Grama Panchayat. 4. I have perused the materials placed on record including the impugned notification and the order dated 3-3-2005 issued by the State Election Commission as per Annexure-J. The present reservation in respect of the Grama Panchayat in question is made in favour of a Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of Adhyaksha. It is not in dispute that the post of Adhyaksha has not been reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste candidates all these years in this Panchayat. It is for the first time, the post of Adhyaksha is being reserved in favour of the Scheduled Caste candidate. Therefore, there is no violation of the rotation system. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a lone lady candidate elected as a member who belongs to Scheduled Caste and if the reservation is made in favour of Scheduled Caste candidate, it will necessarily go to the Scheduled Caste lady candidate which according to the Counsel would tantamount to successive reservation in favour of lady candidate. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a lone lady candidate elected as a member who belongs to Scheduled Caste and if the reservation is made in favour of Scheduled Caste candidate, it will necessarily go to the Scheduled Caste lady candidate which according to the Counsel would tantamount to successive reservation in favour of lady candidate. This argument cannot be accepted. The reservation that is made in favour of Scheduled Caste candidate. Whether it eventually goes in favour of a male member or a lady member is immaterial. The petitioner could have had a legitimate objection if the reservation was made in favour of a lady candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste as there can be no successive reservation in favour of the same category, namely women. Such is not the situation in the present case. Hence, the grievance made by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The guidelines/order issued by the Election Commission does not support the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.