(1) wp9175-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9175 OF 2011 Asha Rajaram Sawant @ Asha Raju Gandhare PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.K. Sadawarte, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for Respondent No. 2. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 29th NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the rejection of his nomination paper on the ground of non-submission of the Validity Certificate. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Validity Certificate was submitted on 24th November, 2011 and it could not be submitted on 23rd November, 2011, which was the last date, since the Authority concerned with issuance of the (2) wp9175-11 Caste Certificate had not issued the same to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that due to the in-action on part of the concerned Authorities, the petitioner's constitutional right as guaranteed under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India has been violated. 3. Assuming for a moment that the last date for submission of the Validity Certificate was 23rd November, 2011 as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and which position is disputed by Shri Shelke, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, the petitioner has admittedly not submitted the Validity Certificate on 23rd November, 2011. By now, it is settled position of law that right to contest the election is neither fundamental, nor constitutional nor a common law right, but is purely a statutory right. The rights and liabilities to contest the elections would be squarely governed by the concerned statutory provision. 4. Insofar as the contention of the present petitioner regarding clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution is concerned, the same is upon total (3) wp9175-11 consideration of writ of said Article. The said Article is only a enabling provision which enables the State for making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. No doubt that by judicial pronouncements, the said provision alongwith Article 16 (4) has been construed to be creating some rights in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to get reservation in respect of public employment. However, merely because of that, it cannot be said that the statutory provisions which govern the liabilities of a candidate, should be given a go-bye merely because a candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste. If the Legislature so intends, it can very well make laws in that regard. However, it is not in the domain of judicial review by this Court to interfere in such matters. In the circumstances, the writ petition is rejected. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp9175-11