Judgment A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner came to be elected as member of Grampanchayat Wanegaon against a seat reserved for O. B. C. Woman category. A meeting was convened for electing Sarpanch and Upa- sarpanch on 12-9-2005. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for O. B. C, woman category. The respondent no. 2 though a candidate belonging to o. B. C. Woman category, had contested the election from General Woman category. A nomination paper was submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 well in time to the Election Officer but the nomination paper was returned on the ground that the same was not accompanied with the caste certificate indicating that the respondent no. 2 belongs to O. B. C. category. Before the scheduled time of the meeting viz. 2 p. m. , the respondent no. 2 had submitted her nomination form accompanied with the caste certificate but the same was also returned back saying that the time for filing nomination paper had lapsed. The meeting could not be held at the scheduled time on 12-9-2005 for want of quorum and hence it was scheduled on the next day. On the next day, only 3 members out of 7 attended the meeting and the petitioner came to be elected. Aggrieved by rejection of the nomination paper, the respondent no. 2 filed a dispute before the Collector and the Collector allowed the dispute and after setting aside the election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, wherein the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, directed holding of fresh election. This order of collector was questioned by filing an appeal before the Additional commissioner, Nashik Division , Nashik. The appellate auttiorty viz. the additional commissioner concurring with the view taken by the Additional collector, Jalgaon, rejceted the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Election Officer is legal and proper. However, he has failed to point out any provision which require filing of caste certificate along with the nomination form. The scheme in regard to election of Sarpanch and Upa- sarpanch to be found in the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, is that the nomination has to be filled not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. The scheme in regard to election of Sarpanch and Upa- sarpanch to be found in the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, is that the nomination has to be filled not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. A member cannot nominate more than one candidate for the office of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. Rule 8 lays down the eligibility of person who acts as a proposer, and Rule 9 is the crucial rule which deals is with scrutiniy of the nomination and the point of time when the scrutiny has to take place. The opening words of rule 9 reads thus:-"after commencement of the meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , the Presiding officer shall scrutinise all nomination papers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , decide any objection which may be mado to any nomination and may either on such objection or on his own motion reject any nomination if it does not satisfy rule 6, 7 and 8. "the first thing that requires to be noted is that the scrutiny has to be after commencement of the meeting and not prior thereto and the nomination can only be reject if it does not satisfy Rule 6, 7 or 8. On no other ground a nomination can be rejected. In the absence of any provision requiring a candidate to submit the caste certificate, it would not be possible for the Election Officer to reject such nomination. It is thus clear that the election Officer has committed an illegality in rejecting the nomination filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 by returning the nomination paper even before the meeting commenced and hence the authorities below are justified in accepting the dispute filed by respondent no. 2 and in setting aside the election of the petition to the post of Sarpanch and in directing holding of fresh election. An identical issue is considered in the judgment of Jyoti Gautam Patil v. Presiding Officer1 for Meeting Convened for Election of Sarpanch, Waigaon, wherein Rule 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, has been interpreted. ( 3 ) IN this view of the matter, no interference is called for. An identical issue is considered in the judgment of Jyoti Gautam Patil v. Presiding Officer1 for Meeting Convened for Election of Sarpanch, Waigaon, wherein Rule 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, has been interpreted. ( 3 ) IN this view of the matter, no interference is called for. The Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed