F.A.O No.1703 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O No.1703 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.10.2009 Chinderpal Kaur ....Appellant Versus Charanjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.2-State Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate for respondents No.5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 23.01.2009, vide which, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Bathinda, dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant, challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.1 as Panch F.A.O No.1703 of 2009 2 General (women) category for the post of Panch General. The facts, in short, are that the Gram Panchayat of village Poohli consists of 9 members, having three Panchs General (male) category and one panch general (women) category. The appellant submitted her nomination papers in General (women) category and respondent No.1 filed her nomination papers in General category. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there being only one post for General (women) category, she should has been declared elected unopposed. The respondent having filed her papers in general category, could not have been allowed to be shown as from General (women) category. By wrongly showing her as General (Women) category, election for the one post reserved for General (women) category was held. After the election, respondent No.1 was polled more votes and was declared elected on the post for General (women) category. The election petition was dismissed on merits by recording a finding as follows :- “ The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has not clarified in her nomination papers that she is contesting under the General (women) category. Hence, she cannot be considered in that category, rather her nomination paper be considered in General Category. Nomination paper was perused. In this, there is no separate column for filing the category in which same can be mentioned. Hence, for this, I agree with this contention of the counsel of respondent No.1 that the nomination papers of the respondent No.1 shall be considered under the same category unless she has not states separately something in her nomination papers. Apart from this, it is pertinent to mention here that during the scrutiny of the nomination papers, petitioner Charanjit Kaur did not raise any objections on the nomination papers. In view of the above, the verdict of the people cannot be discarded on these technical reason. Hence, the issue F.A.O No.1703 of 2009 3 is decided against the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1.” Inspite of the findings on merit, even otherwise, this Court, in the judgment rendered in the case titled as Pritam Kaur vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar and others (FAO No.1044 of 2009, decided on 01-09-2009), held as follows :- “ In the present case, the office of Sarpanch was shown to have been reserved for General Women category. In view of the law, laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, there is no bar on a candidate belonging to another category contesting for the post for general category. The difference, herein, as pointed out, is with respect to the same being reserved for “Women of General Category.” Even then, the fact remains that the present petitioner is a woman. There is nothing called reservation for General Category. Reservation herein is to be therefore interpreted as Reserved for Women. As per the ratio of the judgment referred to above and the same principle, being applicable in the present case, the petitioner, who is a `woman' but belongs to a Scheduled Caste category, cannot be debarred from contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch, `reserved for a woman' belonging to the General Category. The only requirement is that the candidate should be a woman. At the most, the election for the post of Sarpanch has to be kept limited between the women candidates only. All the women, elected as Panch and qualified to hold the seat, are eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch.” The above said judgment was passed while relying on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case titled as Bihari Lal Rada v Anil Jain (Tinu) and others JT 2009(2) SC 455, as well as, by this Court, in the case of Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2009(3) RCR (Civil) and taking into consideration the Section 55 of the Punjab State F.A.O No.1703 of 2009 4 Election Commission Act, 1994, which reads as follows :- “55. Eligibility of members of Scheduled Castes to hold seats not reserved for those castes.- For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a member of the Scheduled Castes shall not be disqualified to hold a seat not reserved for members of those castes, if he is otherwise qualified to hold such seat under the Constitution of India and this Act.” Thus, in the present case, both the appellant and respondent No.1 are women. Both belong to General Category. Thus, to say that respondent No.1 could not have been allowed to contest the seat on the said post of General (women) category, is liable to be rejected. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.10.2009 JUDGE gurpreet