ORDER The petitioner is calling in question the notification dated 18-1-2010 which is impugned at Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner is concerned with the Chikkanakote Village of Kotta Grama Panchayat in Tumkur District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the village in which the petitioner resides consists of large number of residents belonging to BCM(B) category and the petitioner also belongs to the said category. The further contention is that, neither in the earlier election nor in the present election the seat has been assigned to the BCM(B) category and therefore the impugned notification is not sustainable. 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the large number of persons belonging to the said community at least this time the seat should have been provided to the Chikkanakote Village. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 placing reliance on the objection statement filed in this petition would contend that, out of the total seats, one seat is reserved for BCM(B) category in the said Panchayat. The said seat was allocated to Rangapura constituency in the election which was held in the year 1999 and thereafter it was reserved to Kotta 1 in the year 2005 and presently, it has been reserved to Lingadahalli constituency. This itself would indicate that the lone seat which is available is being rotated among the seats which are available for Grama Panchayat and in the next election, by such rotation, it would be allocated to Chikkanakote Village, to which the petitioner is concerned and thereafter it would be rotated further. 5. Insofar as the contention put forth by the petitioner with regard to the large number of BCM(B) persons residing in the village, the respondents contend that there is no basis for the same, since even with the respondents, the official census of the population of Chikkanakote Village is not available to that effect. 6. In the light of what has been contended, firstly what is to be noticed is that the petitioner can have no grievance with regard to the manner in which the reservations have been made for different categories of seats in the said village since the same has been made in accordance with the constitutional mandate and the statutory provisions. 6. In the light of what has been contended, firstly what is to be noticed is that the petitioner can have no grievance with regard to the manner in which the reservations have been made for different categories of seats in the said village since the same has been made in accordance with the constitutional mandate and the statutory provisions. The fact that the lone seat has been reserved for the BCM(B) category in the said Grama Panchayat is also not in dispute. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that there is a large number of BCM(B) persons residing in Chikkanakote Village, there is no material before this Court produced by either side. What is to be noticed is that, in any event, first, the allocation of seats by reservation is more depending on the population and thereafter it would be rotated. While doing so, the population of the other communities would have to be kept in view. In the instant case, the lone seat which was available for BCM(B) category was assigned to Rangapura in the election held in the year 1999 and thereafter to Kotta 1 in 2005 and presently it has been assigned to Lingadahalli, which would indicate that the same is being rotated to the different constituencies keeping in view the reservation made for the other seats also. Therefore, in any event when there is a rotation and it is also indicated that the said seat would naturally be assigned to Chikkanakote Village in the next election, the petitioner cannot have any grievance saying that there is a glaring irregularity in the notification. 7. Hence, this petition being devoid of merit is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.