Short Note : The petitioner contested for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jaora, Tahsil Mehgaon, District Bhind. The ejection was held on 2nd June 1978. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were the other contesting candidates at the election. Respondent No.3 Madho Singh has been declared elected to the office of Sarpanch. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of election of the respondent No.3 as Sarpanch on several grounds 2. Held: The grounds which are available in an ejection petition under section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, cannot be gone into in a writ petition. 1978 [II] WN 182 relied on. 3. A plain reading of section 6-A (1) of the M. P. Panchayats Act shows that clause (c) does not over-ride clause (a) and it only provides that the qualifications other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b) for being registered as a voter in the Gram Sabha remain the same as are prescribed for the Legislative Assembly electoral roll. To the extent that a different provision has been made, such as in clause (a), reference to the corresponding qualification for registration in the Legislative Assembly electoral roll is wholly uncalled for. The provisions of the Panchayats Act are not subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 19 the Representation of the People Act, 1950, is in consonance with Article 326 of the Constitution wherein minimum qualifying age of 21 years is laid down as a qualification for a voter for election to the House of People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State. Obviously neither section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, nor Article 326 govern the qualifications of a voter for inclusion in the voters list prepared under the Panchayats Act. Even on principle we find no flaw in this reduction of age in the qualification of a voter for the Panchayat elections. It is a matter of common knowledge that villagers most often mature at an earlier age. If the Legislature in its wisdom unfettered by any prohibition has thought it fit to reduce the age of a voter for the Panchayats elections, there is no ground for which the High Court can interfere with the same. 4. It is a matter of common knowledge that villagers most often mature at an earlier age. If the Legislature in its wisdom unfettered by any prohibition has thought it fit to reduce the age of a voter for the Panchayats elections, there is no ground for which the High Court can interfere with the same. 4. The object of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962, clearly is to ensure that either the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch of every Gram Panchayat belongs to one of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. It is difficult to appreciate how such a provision made for ensuring proper representation of the weaker section of society in the administration at the Gram Panchayat level can be said to infringe Article 14. The classification is reasonable and it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 5. The next contention of the petitioner was that the voters list for the Gram Sabha prepared in accordance with section 5 of the Act cannot be adopted for election to the Gram Panchayat since there is no statutory provision in the act permitting such a course............This ingenious argument only shows that the legislation is not too well drafted but then this is not a fatal defect. 6. Section 17 (5) does not violate Article 20 of the Constitution. It is obvious that a provision providing for disqualification for contesting an election does not amount to an ex post facto criminal law so as to attract the prohibition contained in Article 20 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.