JODHPUR/JAIPUR, Oct. 10 -- The Rajasthan High Court has held that reservation for women in Panchayati Raj elections must be determined within category-wise quotas and in accordance with the prescribed rotational cycle, ruling that a panchayat reserved for women in an earlier election is not automatically barred from being reserved for women again. "The mere fact that a particular Ward or Panchayat was reserved for women in an earlier election does not, by itself, render its reservation in a subsequent election impermissible," Justice Anand Sharma observed while dismissing a petition challenging the reservation of the sarpanch post in Manchi gram panchayat of Kotputli-Behror district for an OBC woman. The court said authorities must determine category-wise reservations, accommodate the women's quota within those categories and apply the rotation mechanism without arbitrary repetition or exclusion. "Rotation, therefore, does not necessarily involve a fresh and wholly independent exercise at every election; the previous allocation and the stage reached in the prescribed cycle are relevant in determining the succeeding allocation," the court observed. It explained that reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes was vertical, or category-based, while reservation for women operated horizontally across these categories. A post reserved for an SC woman continued to fall within the SC category, with the women's quota operating as an additional component. The court was hearing a petition filed by six Manchi residents challenging the September 24 order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansur, reserving the sarpanch post for an OBC woman. The petitioners argued that the post had been reserved for an SC woman in the 2020 elections and should therefore have been excluded from the women's reservation pool in 2026. They also alleged that the lottery was conducted without disclosing the roster, eligible pool and proceedings. Opposing the petition, Advocate General Rajendra Prasad submitted that reservation of sarpanch posts was governed by Section 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and Rule 9 of the Election Rules, while the provisions cited by the petitioners concerned seats and wards. The court declined to mechanically apply a Bombay HC rulingIt held that the impugned order did not violate the prescribed rotation system or suffer from any illegality, and dismissed the petition....