ORDER 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of Section 175(1) (q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Haryana Act 11 of 1994). The relevant sub-section reads as follows: "175. Disqualifications.-(1) No person shall be a Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or continue as such who- (a) * * * (q) has more than two living children: Provided that a person having more than two children on or up to the expiry of one year of the commencement of this Act (22-4-1994) shall not be deemed to be disqualified." 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the said provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as a person who wants to stand for the offices of Sarpanchas or Panchas of a Gram Panchayat or wants to be a member of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad is disqualified if he has more than two living children whereas other legislators and persons holding public offices are not so disqualified. It is also contended that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld this provision and it is for this reason that a petition under Article 32 is being filed by the petitioner. 3. Section 175(1)(q) is a measure in the direction that there should be smaller families. A beginning in this regard has been made by disqualifying a candidate for holding a post in question if the candidate has more than two living children. Having a small family is in consonance with the national policy. The offices referred to in Section 175(1) are different from the other offices held by elected representatives. They fall under different classes and even if they fall in the same class merely because a provision similar to Section 175(1)(q) of the Act has not been extended to them would not mean that there has been an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. There was legislative competence in the enactment of such a provision. In our opinion, the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana where the validity of the said provision has been upheld appears to be correct. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition. Court Masters