Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. This is an application for placing on record reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. 2. Application is allowed as prayed for. Reply is taken on record. 3. Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing action of the respondents by which draw of lots held on 5.2.2010 reserving the post of Sarpanch of village Israna, Tehsil and District Panipat, for general category women, was cancelled and a fresh draw of lots was held on 18.2.2010 whereby the post of Sarpanch was reserved for general category. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of draw held on 5.2.2010, another draw of lots was not permissible and thus, this action of the respondents is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. According to learned counsel, the post of Sarpanch of Village Israna was earlier reserved for women belonging to general category, but was later converted to general category. Learned counsel has challenged this action on the ground that there is no provision in the Act under which the State could have cancelled the draw of lots held on 5.2.2010. 5. Learned State counsel has, however, controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there was a bona fide mistake when draw of lots dated 5.2.2010 was held. According to him, in view of the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short `the Act), not less than one-third of the total number of seats have to reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Caste and, as such, seats are to be allotted by rotation and by lots to different wards. According to learned State counsel, when it was realised that compliance of Section 9 (2) and (3) of the Act had not been made, a fresh draw of lots was held and in the said draw of lots, the seat was kept for general category. He has further pointed that in the fresh draw of lots, hundreds of villagers including Panches and petitioner participated but none of them raised any objection at the relevant time. He has referred to proceedings dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure R-1/2) in this regard, which were signed by a number of villagers. 6. have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. He has referred to proceedings dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure R-1/2) in this regard, which were signed by a number of villagers. 6. have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It appears that it was only due to a bona fide mistake that post of Sarpanch of village Israna was reserved for General Category Women. After having realised the mistake and violation of Section 9(2) and (3) of the Act, the State immediately took remedial measures and held a fresh draw of lots whereby the post in question was kept in general category. There appears to be no legal infirmity with the action taken by the respondents, as the fresh draw of lots for the purpose of reservation was held according to law. Thus, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.