Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Jagir Singh against the order of Addl.Deputy Commissioner (General)-cum-Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur, dated 12.10.2009, vide which election petitioner Rajwinder Kaur has been declared to have been elected in the general category and election of Jagir Singh (appellant) has been set aside. 2. General election to constitute Gram Panchayats in the State of Punjab were held in the month of May. 2008 including the Gram Panchayat of village Bhattiwal, Block Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. This Gram Panchayat comprises of even seats of Panches, which are bifurcated as under:- (i) General :3 (ii) General (Women) :1 (iii) S.C :2 (iv) S.C. (Women) :1 Total :7 3 12 candidates filed their nomination papers against the seven seats. Out of total 1371 voters of the village, 1094 voters exercised their right to vote. Gut of which 35 votes were cancelled whereas 1059 votes were declared valid. The election petitioner (Rajwinder Kaur) polled 338 votes and Karanveer Kaur polled 385 votes and as such, she was declared elected in the category of General (Women) defeating the election petitioner. In the General Category, Salwant Singh got 76 votes, Ranbir Singh got 63 votes, Jagir Singh got 50 votes and Gurjit Singh got 28 votes, out of whom first three were declared elected including the appellant (Jagir Singh). 4. Election petitioner/respondent No.l, challenged the election of Jagir Singh on the ground that she had never filled her nomination papers in the category of General (Women) and has been wrongly put in that category by the Returning Officer at the time of declaration of result. It was alleged that if she had to contest the election in the category of General (Women), then she would have mentioned her choice in the nomination papers. But since she has not expressed her desire to contest the election in the category of General (Women), the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to put her in the category of General (Women) only on the basis that she is a Jat Sikh (General) and a lady. It is also alleged that she had not made any choice in the nomination papers and being a Jat Sikh, she had desired to contest the election in the General Category instead of any category reserved for any class/classes. 5. It is also alleged that she had not made any choice in the nomination papers and being a Jat Sikh, she had desired to contest the election in the General Category instead of any category reserved for any class/classes. 5. The learned Tribunal after framing issues and providing opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence, came to the conclusion, after relying a decision of this Court rendered in FAO No.2246 (Balwinder Singh v. Surinder Kaur and others,) decided on 01.11.2006 reported as 2007(1) L.A.R. 595, that if any nomination paper is filed against the vacancy of General Category (Women), then it should be clearly mentioned in the words "Lady Panch". But as the election petitioner had not mentioned in the nomination papers that she is contesting in the category of "Lady Panch", she should have been considered in the General Category and not in the category of General Lady". 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant in which it is inter-alia contended that under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 , (for short, the Act), there is no such ground on which the present election petition has been filed and that the election petitioner being a lady belonging to General Category was necessarily a candidate contesting in the general lady category and should not have been allowed to cross over to Constituency meant for general candidate after having been defeated by another candidate contesting in the general lady category. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Section 89(d)(i) of the Act provides that in case of any improper acceptance of any nomination paper, the election can be challenged. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate as to how the Returning Officer has prepared the result (Annexure A-4) allotting the seats meant for General Candidates to all the males and putting all the females in the General (Women Category). He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Des Raj v. Surjit Kaur, (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 74. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 9. He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Des Raj v. Surjit Kaur, (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 74. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 9. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner did not mention her choice in the column of "Name of Office". She has simply mentioned "Office of Panch" and has disclosed his caste as "Jat". As it has been held by this Court in the afore-referred FAO No.2246 (supra) that in case of contesting for a vacancy of general category (women), it has to be clearly mentioned by the candidate at the time of filing her nomination papers the word "Lady Panch"., otherwise, it would be considered as if she has contested the election in the general category, in case she does not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes Category. 10. There is hardly any room for an argument to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the election petitioner had intended to contest the election in the category of General (Women) but she did not show her choice to be filled up in her nomination papers. Similarly, in Des Rajs case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that if a candidate not specifically mentioning his claim in a particular reserved category, has to be considered as a general category candidate even if he has mentioned his caste which happens to be a Scheduled Caste. 11. In so far as the other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, that it is no ground to challenge the election. Section 89(d)(ii) of the Act is very much categoric that where nomination papers have been wrongly considered, which materially affect the election of the candidate, the same can be challenged by way of an election petition. In the present case, the appellant has secured only 50 votes,whereas the election petitioner had secured 338 votes, but only because of the reason that the Returning Officer had wrongly considered the election petitioner in the category, of General (Women), the appellant who had secured only 50 votes has been declared to have been elected. 12. In the present case, the appellant has secured only 50 votes,whereas the election petitioner had secured 338 votes, but only because of the reason that the Returning Officer had wrongly considered the election petitioner in the category, of General (Women), the appellant who had secured only 50 votes has been declared to have been elected. 12. Thus, looking from any angle, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs.