Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a revision under Section 441-F of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the order by which the election of the returned candidate has been declared to be void. ( 2. ) SECTION 11-A (4) of the Act provides that as nearly as possible one-third of offices of Mayors of the Municipal Corporations in the State shall be "reserved for women". In exercise of the power conferred by Section 11-A (5) of the Act the State Government has framed M. P. Municipalities (Reservation of Office of Mayor) Rules, 1999. According to Rule 5 (4) of these Rules the reservation for women is done "by drawing of a lot". It is not in dispute that the office of the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Katni was notified as reserved for women in the year 1999 in conformity with these Rules. ( 3. ) THE State Government has framed the M. P. Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as "nirvachan Niyam")There is provision for preparation of voters list and appointment of Registration Officer by the State Election Commission, publication of the voters list for inviting claims and objections by the Registration Officer, preferring of claims and objections, their disposal and finalisation of such list. No correction in any entry or inclusion or deletion of any name can be made in the voters list after its finalisation. Ex. D-l is the voters list of Ward No. 25, Netaji subhash Chandra Ward of Katni which was prepared in the year 1999. There are two entries 643 and 644 in this list which are relevant in this case. Entry no. 643 is "kamla son of Nihora, male aged 48 years". Entry 644 reads "kamla son/wife of not known, female aged 45 years". The returned candidate in the present case filled up form No. 3 known as "nomination Paper" (Ex. P-11) as per Niyam 24 on 2-12-1999 for election to the office of the Mayor of the municipal Corporation, Katni in which the name of the candidate has been shown "kamla son of not known" of Subhash Ward, Katni whose name is entered at serial No. 644 of this Ward. Against column (f) the name of the candidate has been mentioned "kamla Jan Hijra". Against column (f) the name of the candidate has been mentioned "kamla Jan Hijra". There is a declaration of the candidate in this form "i am qualified and not also disqualified for being chosen to seat of the Mayor". This nomination paper was accepted by the returning Officer on 3-12-1999. The election took place on 22-12-1999. This candidate was declared elected. There were some other candidates who were defeated. ( 4. ) FIVE election petitions were filed under Section 441 of the Act calling in question the aforesaid election. These were consolidated by the First additional District Judge, Katni for the purpose of trial. The grounds on which the election has been challenged are that the returned candidate was disqualified to be chosen as a Mayor and the result has been materially affected by the "improper acceptance of nomination". It is stated in the election petitions that the returned candidate is not a "woman" and, therefore, she could not contest the election for the office of the Mayor of the Municipal corporation, Katni which is reserved for women. According to the election petitioners the returned candidate is "hijra " (eunuch) and not a woman. The returned candidate claims to be "woman" and "hijra " as her nickname. ( 5 ) . The Election Judge after an exhaustive and critical analysis of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by both the sides has concluded that the returned candidate is "hijra" (eunuch) and that is not her nickname. For arriving at this finding the evidence which has been relied upon is (a) Ex. P-10, certified copy of the identity card issued by the Election Commission of india bears the photo of the returned candidate and has been described as male (b) Ex. P-21 is a news paper dated 12-9-1993 having the photograph and publishing a panch Faisla according to which the returned candidate has been described as hijra having succeeded to the gaddi of Nihora who was admittedly guru of Hijras for along time (c) in the nomination paper dated 2-12-1999 the returned candidate has been described as Hijra (d) the returned candidate was admittedly living in house No. 124, Subhash Ward, Katni which was earlier in occupation of Nihora who was Guru of Hijras and after his death it came in possession of Kamla son of Nihora, it has been mutated in that name as per documents (Ex. P-16 to Ex. P-16 to Ex. P-20) and it was never mutated in the name of kamla son of not known, (e) in the voters list of 1995 and 1998 (Ex. P-7 to ex. P-9) against entry No. 186 the name of "kamla - Nihora" is appearing and in that name that person must have voted in the elections in those years, (f) in 1991 there were instructions of the Election Commission to record Hijras as male and that is the reason that in 1995 and in 1998 voters list he has been described as male, (g) the returned candidate was living amongst Hijras in Hijra mohalla in the house No. 124 known as dharamsala of Hijras and has been brought up as Hijra for more than 20 years, (h) there is Saving Bank Account no. 3440 (Ex. D-3) in the name of "kamla Jan alias Kamaluddin" and the application form for opening the account bears the photo of the returned candidate (Mayor) and this has been proved by R. S. Dadia (D. W. 2) who is the officer of the Bank, (i) the passport (Ex. D-3) which the Mayor has got issued after the election is bearing the photo and it resembles the photographs on identity card (Ex. P-10), Paper Publication (Ex. P-21) and the Bank account opening form (Ex. D-3), (j) the Trial Judge has expressed that the Mayor in the witness box is the same person who has been photographed in Exs. P-10, p-21 and D-3 as mentioned above (k) on appreciation of oral evidence of kamendra Singh (P. W. 1), Makhanlal (P. W. 3), K. L. Pande (P. W. 4), V. D. Gour (P. W. 5), Tarabai (D. W. 1), Anguribai (D. W. 2) and Kamla (D. W. 6), it has been found that the real name of the returned candidate is "kamla son of nihora" as entered at Serial Number 643, he is guru of hijras and has succeeded the earlier guru Nihora; the person who has been examined as Kamla representing to be son of Nihora (D. W. 6) is an importer, the returned candidate continues to be guru of hijras even after the election and the story that hijra is nickname of the returned candidate is totally false. There is proper appreciation of evidence. There is proper appreciation of evidence. There is no perversity or unreasonableness in the approach of the Trial Judge and, therefore, the findings are not liable to be interfered with in this revision. It is deducible from these findings that the person who got the entry at serial No. 644 is the same person whose name is entered at serial No. 643 as there was only one person of that name living in house No. 124, of the Subhash Ward. The conclusion arrived at by the Trial Judge that the returned candidate is hijra is correct and it is not the nickname. ( 6. ) THE Trial Judge has made a research of the ancient, mediaeval and modern history, referred to various dictionaries, Encyclopaedias and medical jurisprudence and then drew the inference that hijra is eunuch which means a castrated human male. He is deprived of testes and external genitals. Such a person is incapable of producing ova and conceive a child. Eunuch is not "female" and therefore, can not be called a "woman". The Election commission had earlier issued instructions that "hijras" should be described as male in the voters list and now as per recent instructions "the eunuch should be registered in the electoral rolls either as male, or as female, on the basis of the statement made by the person concerned at the time of enrolment". There is letter dated 19-9-1994 (Annexure P-2 to the revision) on this point. It is clear that the returned candidate got enrolled in the voters list of 1999 as "female". That is, however, not conclusive for the purpose of "reservation for women". In order that a candidate may legally contest for the seat reserved for women it must be proved that the candidate is "woman" in fact. The voters list can not be treated as final for that purpose because in that list the option of the candidate who was hijra prevailed. If hijra is legally held to be male naturally he can not contest from the seat reserved for women. The returned candidate in the present case is hijra and not woman. The identity card (Ex. P-10) of the returned candidate issued by the Election Commission of India describes him as male. If hijra is legally held to be male naturally he can not contest from the seat reserved for women. The returned candidate in the present case is hijra and not woman. The identity card (Ex. P-10) of the returned candidate issued by the Election Commission of India describes him as male. The election petitioners submitted applications before the Trial judge to call upon the returned candidate to undergo medical examination but that proposal was opposed and from this conduct also an inference has been rightly drawn that the returned candidate is not a "woman". The finding of fact of the Trial Judge on this point is also correct. ( 7. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the voters list is final on the point that the returned candidate is a woman and the election Judge could not legally go into the question whether the returned candidate is a man or woman. It is pointed out that no objection was raised at the time of the preparation of the voters list on this point and therefore, it has attained finality as per Rule 9 of the Nirvachan Niyam. This argument is not acceptable. In S. P. Singh Vs. Nawal Kishore Yadav, AIR 2000 SC 3000 = (2000) 8 SCC 46 it has been held that the electoral roll is to be deemed final and conclusive as far as the fulfilment of "qualification" of a voter is concerned but it is not to be deemed final and conclusive by the Election Tribunal so far as the "disqualifications" attaching to such persons are concerned. An entry in the electoral roll has to be taken to be "conclusive proof of the fact that the person fulfils the requisite conditions as to age and residence in the constituency; finality has been given to the decision of the officer preparing the roll insofar as the fulfilment of conditions of registration is concerned but it has not been considered desirable to extend the same finality to the decision on the subject of disqualification as the latter is a more serious matter. The same view has been reiterated in Harishanker Jain Vs. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 after making reference of earlier decision of the Supreme court in D. S. Mehta Vs. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520 . The same view has been reiterated in Harishanker Jain Vs. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 after making reference of earlier decision of the Supreme court in D. S. Mehta Vs. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520 . In Para 19 of this judgment it has been observed : Sub-section (7) of Section 36 of RPA, 1951 dealing with scrutiny of nomination paper by the Returning Officer itself provides that for the purpose of this section, a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll shall be conclusive evidence of the person being an elector for that constituency "unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950". It is, therefore, clear that if a person is alleged to be not a citizen of India and, therefore, suffering from absence of qualification under Article 84 as also a positive disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution, then the case is one which attracts applicability of Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of RPA, 1951 and such an issue can be tried by the High Court in an election petition in spite of the returned candidate being enrolled in the voters list for it will be a case of alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. ( 8. ) IN the present case the returned candidate suffers from the fundamental disqualification from contesting the election from a seat which was reserved for women as returned candidate is not a woman. Therefore, the voters list on this point is not final. As mentioned above, at the time of the preparation of the voters list the option given to the returned candidate of being recorded as a man or woman prevailed. So far as the question whether the returned candidate is a woman has to be decided by the Election Judge to determine whether the returned candidate was disqualified from contesting from the seat reserved for women. The qualifications for voters are given in section 12 and the disqualifications for voters are provided in Section 13 of the Act. Further, qualifications for Mayor are provided in Section 16 and disqualifications for the Mayor are provided in Section 17 of the Act. The qualifications for voters are given in section 12 and the disqualifications for voters are provided in Section 13 of the Act. Further, qualifications for Mayor are provided in Section 16 and disqualifications for the Mayor are provided in Section 17 of the Act. The returned candidate in the present case, no doubt, does not suffer from any disqualification as provided in Section 17 of the Act but the disqualification arises from the fact that the seat of the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, katni is reserved for women and the returned candidate has not been found to be a woman. Therefore, the Election Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the disputed question whether the returned candidate is a woman or not. It has been found that the returned candidate suffered from an inherent incapacity to contest from the seat reserved for women. The returned candidate was not eligible to contest from that seat and because of this disqualification, election of the returned candidate has been rightly declared to be void. The order of the Election Judge is not appealable. Section 441-F (1) specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against the decision of the Court on petition. Sub-section (2) of this Section permits revision against the order of the election Judge. A revision can lie on two grounds only (a) that the decision is contrary to law and (b) that the Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. In the present case the decision of the Election Judge can not be said to be contrary to law. It does not suffer from jurisdictional infirmity. Therefore, the decision of the election Judge can not be interfered with in the revision. ( 9. ) IN the result, the revisions filed by the returned candidate are dismissed. Civil Revisions dismissed.