Shiv Dayal, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 225 of the Constitution.

2. Vinodkumar petitioner and Tekchand (respondent 2) filed nomination papers for the election of Panch, from Ward No. 15 (village Simaria) of Gram Sabha of Jhingaral, Tahsil Sihora, district Jabalpur. In that village Ward No. 14 is a reserved seat for scheduled tribes, while Ward No. 15 is a general seat. The petitioner's nomination paper unequivocally mentioned that he was proposed as a candidate for the general seat of Ward No. 15. Still his nomination paper has been rejected on the ground that in another column, he has mentioned Ward No. 14, which created an ambiguity.

3. The nomination paper opens with a declaration by the proposer in which he specifies the name of the candidate and the name of the ward from which the candidate is to contest the election. The material portion of the form may be reproduced here (as rendered into English)

(1) I hereby nominate.....as a candidate for election from ward No. 1 Name:-

(2) ward No./Name......

(3) Name of Candidate.....

(4) Father's/Husband's name......

(5) Age......

(6) Full postal address of the candidate......

(7) Ward No./Name in which the name of the candidate is entered as a voter in the voter's list......

(Numbering has been done by us for the sake of convenience. Rest of the form is not material for this petition.)

4. It is quite clear from the above form that the number or name of the ward from which a candidate seeks election has to be filled in by the proposer in column (1), while entries in columns (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are all meant to establish the identity of the candidate. In the present case, the entry in column (1) was rightly and unambiguously made. The declaration ready thus:

"I hereby nominate Vinod Kumar as a candidate for election ward No./Name 15."

(MAIN ETADDWARA VINODKUMAR KO WARD KRAMANK NAM 15 SE NIRWACHAN HETU UMMIDWAR KE RUP MEN NAM NIRDESHIT KARTA HUN.)

It is no body's case, and it could not be, that there is any ambiguity in this entry Likewise, there is no ambiguity in the entry in column (7), where No. 14 is entered to show that the candidate's name appears in the voter's list of Ward No. 14.

5. Now, what the proposer did was that in column (2) he entered No. "14" and the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper merely on the ground that by that entry the candidate's name proposed for Ward No. 14, for which the candidate was not eligible, it being a reserved seat. The Returning Officer also noticed that in column (1), the candidate's name was proposed for Ward No. 15. This he calles an ambiguity. The purpose of column (2) is not at all clear, nor could the learned Government Advocate make it to us clear. Firstly, the expression "WARD KRAMANK/NAM" is vague, indefinite and 'ambigous. Which Ward No. is to be entered in this column the number of that ward from which the candidate's name is proposed for election, or the number of that ward in the voter's list in which his name is entered? The heading of the column should have been clear. Secondly, just above that column. When there is a firm declaration that the candidate's name is proposed for election from such and such ward, what on earth is the purpose of column (2), is not at all understandable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all these columns (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are meant for the identity of the candidate and therefore, a candidate has to enter in column (2) the number of that ward in the voter's list of which his name will be found for the purpose of scrutinizing his identity. Learned Government Advocate's answer is that entry is to be made in column (7), so that column (2) could not be meant for that purpose as it would mean unnecessary repetition. But that argument recoils against itself, inasmuch as if the number or name of the ward from which a candidate is to contest the election is to be entered in column (2), it was a mere repetition of what was said in the opening co