JUDGMENT R.Devdas, J. - W.P.No.9630/2020 and W.P.No.9641/2020 are considered together since the challenge raised in these writ petitions pertain to Budihal Gram Panchayath. 2. In W.P.No.9630/2020, the grievance is with respect to Kachanahalli and in W.P.No.9641/2020, the grievance is with respect to Deganahalli, both falling within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 - Gram Panchayat. 3. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions would submit that with respect to Kachanahalli, till 2015, the number of seats allotted were 4 and subsequently, from the year 2015, the number of seats allotted is 2. It is submitted that right from the year 2005, at least one of the seats has been reserved in favour of women. It is pointed out that in the previous election that is of the year 2015, out of the two seats allotted to Kachenahalli, one was reserved for General (Woman) and the other was left with General Category. In the present impugned notification, out of two seats, one is reserved for Scheduled Caste and other is reserved for Backward Class-A (Woman). 4. Similarly, with respect to Deganahalli, it is submitted that the sole seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) in the year 2015 and in the present notification, it is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that as per the rules of rotation, an endeavour should be made by the Deputy Commissioner not to reserve a seat in favour of woman if such a reservation was already made in the previous election. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Grama Panchayats by Rotation) Rules, 1998 is pressed into service. It is submitted that proviso very clearly says that where a seat in a constituency of the Gram Panchayat was allotted to a category referred to in subrules (1), (2) or (3) or for a woman during previous term, the Deputy Commissioner shall not as far as possible allot a seat in that constituency to the same category or for a woman in the succeeding term. 5. Sri. K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission draws attention of this Court to the work sheet prepared by the Deputy Commissioner which is produced along with the statement of objection at Annexure-R4C. 5. Sri. K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission draws attention of this Court to the work sheet prepared by the Deputy Commissioner which is produced along with the statement of objection at Annexure-R4C. He further submits that this work sheet is prepared as per the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission. It is submitted that in terms of Section 5 (4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) provides that not less than 50% of the seats reserved in each category, for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes and of the nonreserved seats in the Gram Panchayat are required to be reserved for women subject to an overall limit of one half rounding of to the next number . 6. Attention of the this Court is drawn to paragraph 19 of the statement of objections, wherein in terms of the policy of reservation, the number of seats reserved for woman has been worked out with respect to Budihal Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that out of 22 seats available in gram panchayath, 11 seats have been reserved for woman. For single seats in the category of Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class-B, the reservation is made in favour of woman, in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act. With respect to Scheduled Caste, out of 5 seats 3 are reserved for women. With respect to Backward Class-A, out of 4 seats 2 seats are reserved for women and in the General Category, out of 11 seats 4 are reserved for women. It is submitted that the petitioners have not raised a challenge with respect to reservation made towards women. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the work sheet, it could be seen that due care has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner to rotate the seats as far as possible. 7. Sri. R. Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents State and the Deputy Commissioner would submit that with respect to Deganahalli where there is only one seat and since the said seat is reserved for Scheduled Caste, the sole seat is required to be reserved in favour of the woman and therefore, there cannot be possibility of any change. Insofar as Kachenahalli is concerned, it is submitted that on the previous occasion that is of the year 2015, out of 2 seats of General Category, one was reserved for woman. However, for the present year, out of two seats, one is reserved for Scheduled Castes and the other for Backward Class-A (Woman). It is submitted that if the reservation made in favour of the Backward Class-A is shifted to Mandigere and the sole seat of Mandigere which is General Category seat is shifted to Kachanahalli, then there will be grievance that the General Category seat is repeated with respect to Kachenahalli. 8. Heard the learned Senior Counsels and learned Additional Advocate General and perused the petition papers. 9. On going through the work sheet, this Court is of the opinion that if at all there is possibility of making a change, in the sense that for Kachenahalli, where there has been reservation of at least one seat from the year 2005 with respect to woman, the Deputy Commissioner along with the State Election Commission may consider the possibility of shifting the General Category seat to Kachanahalli and shift Backward Classes (Woman) Category to Mandigere. This can only be taken as a suggestion made by this Court since the Deputy Commissioner will have to take into consideration so many other aspects before making a decision for interchanging these two categories of seats between Mandigere and Kachanahalli. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that there may be a grievance if the General Category seat is shifted once again to Kachanahalli, that on the previous occasion also there is a General Category seat reserved for Kachanahalli, also cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider all these aspects and look to the possibility of making a change. 10. It is made clear that with respect to Deganahalli, the grievance of the petitioners is unfounded. 11. With the above observations, W.P.No.9630/2020 and W.P.No.9641/2020 are disposed of.