1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8278 OF 2008 DIST.: RAIGAD Reshma Ramesh Talkar @ Jomu Balaram Jamdade ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Shailya S. Deshmukh for the Petitioner Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State Mr. S.B. Shetye for Respondent No. 4. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2008 P.C.:- The petitioner challenges the rejection of her nomination form for election to the Gram Panchayat. Her form has been rejected on the ground that she failed to mention her caste in the nomination form, as she claims to be a candidate under a reserved category of Other Backward Classes. The form supplied to her mentioned a column as to whether she belongs to any reserved category, and in case the candidate belongs to a reserved category of O.B.C., she had to mention the caste, because O.B.C. as such, is not a caste in itself, but Other 2 Backward Classes are a group of castes. Since she failed to mention to which caste she belonged, her nomination was rightly rejected, as there is a term under the rules that if a person claims to contest election on a reserved seat, he has to mention his caste in the nomination form. 2. The petitioner submits that she had annexed a certificate of belonging to a particular caste. We feel that the presentation of certificate along with the form would not cure the defect of not mentioning the caste in the form, which was a requirement under law. In any case, these are election disputes, which can be entertained only after the elections are over. 3. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in the case of Anant Janardan Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 BOMBAY 87. We do not find that this judgment covers the present case. 4. The Writ Petition is misconceived and dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. J.H. BHATIA, J.