JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.: - Petitioner Hukumsingh Siriah -a co-opted Councillor of the Municipal Council, Kamptee, District Nagpur, has by this petition challenged the order of the Government dated 8th July, 1985 passed under section 51-A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act ('the Act') refusing to accord approval to his appointment as Vice-President by the President in terms of section 51-A(1) on the ground that no co-opted Councillor can be nominated. Other challenges are that (a) State control over the choice of the Vice-President and that too without any guidelines is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and (b) disqualification carved out, if any only against a co-opted Councillor is discriminatory. We see no merit in any of these contentions for the reasons that follows:- 2. Section 51-A reads thus: “(1)(a) Every Council shall have a Vice-President who shall be appointed by the President from amongst the elected or deemed to be elected Councillors, before the first meeting convened by him is held, or, as the case may be, within seven days from the date on which the vacancy in the office of Vice-President occurs due to any reason. (b) The President shall intimate the name of the “Vice-President appointed by him under Clause (a) to the Collector and the State Government forthwith and also to the Council at its meeting held immediately following such appointment. (2) The appointment of the Vice-President by the President shall be subject to the approval of the State Government. Within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the intimation under sub-section (1), the State Government may by order either approve or disapprove and cancel the appointment of the Vice-President made by the President and send an intimation to the President accordingly. If, within the said period, no intimation is sent to the President by the State Government the appointment shall be deemed to be approved by it. (3) Where the President fails to appoint a Vice-President within the period specified under Clause (a) of sub-section (1), the Chief Officer shall report to the State Government; and the State Government shall appoint a Vice-President from amongst the elected Councillors. (3) Where the President fails to appoint a Vice-President within the period specified under Clause (a) of sub-section (1), the Chief Officer shall report to the State Government; and the State Government shall appoint a Vice-President from amongst the elected Councillors. (4) The Vice-President shall hold office of Vice-President for one year from the date of his appointment or for the residue of his term as Councillor, whichever is earlier, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of this section and of section 55-A and other provisions of this Act and shall be eligible for reappointment. (5) The appointment of the Vice-President shall be liable to be terminated at any time during his term by the President, with the prior approval of the State Government. (6) If the office of the President becomes vacant earlier due to any reason, the Vice-President may continue to hold his office for the residue of his term under sub-section (4).” As per section 2(7) the term 'Councillor' means a person who is (i) duly elected or (ii) co-opted or (iii) nominated as a member of the Council. Section 9 refers to the Composition of Council which consist of all the three varieties of Councillors. Members elected from wards have power to co-opt members from voters having special knowledge or practical experience in the field of public health, Local Self-Government, education or welfare of labour. Section 18(1) takes care of the situation where there is a failure to elect a Councillor from a particular ward even after a fresh election after the general or bye-election. Such a vacancy can be filled in by nomination by a duly qualified person by the State Government and section 18(2) provides that “Any person nominated by the State Government under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be elected at an election under this Act”. Section 51 deals with the manner of election of President and co-option of the Councillors. Section 51(1) mentions that “Every Council shall have a President, who shall be elected from amongst the Councillors, who are elected or deemed to be elected.” Section 51(8)(b) mentions that “the co-opted members shall have no right to vote on any motion relating to the election of the President”. Section 56 deals with the consequences of the absence of President or Vice-President without leave. Section 56 deals with the consequences of the absence of President or Vice-President without leave. President is obliged within 7 days from the date on which the leave is granted to appoint another elected Councillor to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the Vice-President during the leave period. Section 59 gives a list of function of the Vice-President. Vice-President is entitled to perform the functions and the duties of the President in certain circumstances. The Maharashtra Municipal Council (Co-option of Councillors) Rules, 1967 framed as per requirement of section 51(7) prescribe the manner of election of co-opted members. 3. It is in the context of these provisions that the submissions of Shri Kukdey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, have to be considered. It is contended that the word 'elected' in section 51-A should be widely construed so as to include even the election of the co-opted members. Now, while it cannot be disputed that process of election is involved in the making of a co-opted member, it is apparent that the category of co-opted member is treated as a separate class different from the ward members and a co-opted member does not have all privileges of a ward member. If the intention was not to exclude any particular class nothing prevented the legislature from using the mere word “Councillor”. The very fact that only two out of the three varieties of Councillors are specifically mentioned gives clear idea of Legislative intention. The term 'elected' thus means a duly elected ward member under section 9 and the term “deemed to be elected” means a duly nominated ward member under section 18. There is yet another angle to which our attention was drawn by Shri Desai. The learned Counsel for the State and Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the intervenors and that relates to the similar language used in section 51(1). Section 51(8)(b) prohibits a co-opted member from voting on any motion relating to the election of the President. If the contention is accepted under section 51(1) even a co-opted member would be able to contest the election of the President and this situation is clearly not warranted. As these factors are more than sufficient to decide the point, it is unnecessary to refer to other lighter shades of the controversy. 4. If the contention is accepted under section 51(1) even a co-opted member would be able to contest the election of the President and this situation is clearly not warranted. As these factors are more than sufficient to decide the point, it is unnecessary to refer to other lighter shades of the controversy. 4. We now pass on to the point as to whether this exclusion is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Now, while judging validity of any attack on the provisions of any law relating to Local Self Government, it is always necessary to kept in mind that the rights created therein are not common law or civil rights but are merely statutory rights which means they are subject to the limitations imposed by the respective statute. Now, it is quite obvious that a co-opted member belongs to a separate class and is a member only because of the expertise the possesses. He does not represent any constituency. There is a definite object in having experts as Councillors and it is to take benefit of their expertise in the Municipal Administration. In order that his expert knowledge is utilized fully, if he kept out of elections and the office of the Vice-President (who in a given case may even be required to function as the President) so that his energies are not diverted from the task for which he is co-opted it is difficult to see absence of nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Exclusion of a co-opted member is thus a matter of sound policy. 5. Now the attack on validity of section 51-A. Legislative history of the provisions regarding appointment of a Vice-President may be noticed in short. The Act as it originally stood provided for election of a President and Vice-President from amongst the Councillors (section 51). By Maharashtra Act No. 41 of 1973, the section was amended and the election of the President was made direct by the voters of all the wards. Section 51(7) empowered the President to have a Vice-President of his choice from amongst the elected Councillors, without any fetters or control by the State Government. By Maharashtra Act No. 19 of 1981, section 51 was subjected to further changes. Election of the President was made indirect again and section 51-A was introduced. Section 51(7) empowered the President to have a Vice-President of his choice from amongst the elected Councillors, without any fetters or control by the State Government. By Maharashtra Act No. 19 of 1981, section 51 was subjected to further changes. Election of the President was made indirect again and section 51-A was introduced. Submission is that there is no rationale whatsoever in introducing a control of the State Government over the appointment of a Vice-President specially when it did not exist before. Now, this again is a policy matter. The President who is elected by the Councillors is given an extraordinary power to make a choice of the Vice-President who in a given set of circumstances can preform functions of the President. If such appointment to an important post under the circumstances, is subjected to some control by the State it is difficult to see any vice of arbitrariness. After all control of the State over, functioning of the Municipal Council at various levels and stages very much exists. 6. Next facet of the submission is that control is unguided and, therefore, bad. We do not agree. In this connection, the following observations in the case of (N.N. Khubchandani v. State of Maharashtra)1, Writ Petition No. 3994 of 1983, decided on 1-12-1983, may be noticed: “Whatever that be, we find that the statute does not contain any guidelines regarding the appointment to be made by the President except that the Vice-President should be one of the Councillors which the petitioner undoubtedly is or pertaining to the action to be taken by the Government on receipt of necessary intimation from the President. This, however, cannot be taken to imply that either the President or the Government exercising their powers under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) respectively can act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically... It is possible to hold that there is no scope for a hearing or for passing a speaking order. This, however, cannot imply that it is absolutely in the discretion of the Government to approve or disapprove of the appointment of the Vice-President and that disapproval can be made without the slightest basis for the same or on a basis which is totally irrational or capricious. This, however, cannot imply that it is absolutely in the discretion of the Government to approve or disapprove of the appointment of the Vice-President and that disapproval can be made without the slightest basis for the same or on a basis which is totally irrational or capricious. If there was any material against the petitioner available either in the return or reflected to the slightest degree in the file, which we have perused, then we would have been very reluctant to embark on a judicial review or appraisal of that material or to suggest that some hearing is required to be given to the petitioner on that material.” We respectfully concur with the above approach. Looking to the nature of the power and control, specifying guidelines may not even be feasible. Section 51-A thus does not violate Article 14. 7. To conclude, the petition is dismissed and the Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that the interim order stands automatically vacated. Shri Kukdey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage requests for stay of operation of this judgment for a period of three weeks. Request rejected. Petition dismissed. -----