ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2(i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by order dated 09.05.2024 passed in W.P. No.17520/2022 by the writ Court, whereby the Writ Petition No.17520/2022 filed by respondent No.6/ petitioner therein has been allowed and the appellant herein has been declared ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Ward No.3, Raisen and the said seat was declared vacant. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are as under :- 2. The appellant contested the election of Member Zila Panchayat, Raisen, from Ward No.3, which was reserved for members of Other Backwards Class ( O.B.C). The appellant herein submitted a nomination form along with an affidavit declaring that he belongs to the O.B.C. category, whereas he does not possess the OBC caste certificate. However, the appellant is claiming himself to be "Pal Baghele" (notified as O.B.C. Caste at Serial No.23 for the State of Madhya Pradesh) to become a member of Other Backwards Class, but admittedly does not possess the caste certificate of the same. 2.1 Smt. Pooja Chouksey, the wife of respondent No.6 contested the said election but lost the same. The appellant was declared elected for the said post as he secured the highest votes. Smt. Pooja Chowksey filed an Election Petition bearing Case No.0002/Election Petition/2022 [Pooja Chowksey Vs. Rajendra Baghel] under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, challenging the election of this appellant inter alia on the ground that the appellant belongs to the General category and did not produce the O.B.C. caste certificate and thus the election should be declared as void. 3. Vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Bhopal, the Election Petition came to be dismissed on the ground that after submission of nomination papers by the appellant herein, no one raised any objection with respect of caste certificate, therefore, on the basis of the affidavit, the election form was rightly accepted and the Election Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed, accordingly. 4. 4. During the pendency of the said Election Petition, the Respondent No.6 sought a writ of quo warranto, contending that the present appellant herein had no authority to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, as he is a candidate of the General category and the said post was reserved for Other Backwards Classes. The learned Writ Court specifically asked questions from the appellant as to whether he belongs to the O.B.C. Category and does possess a caste certificate of the same or not; and the appellant answered the same in the negative. Therefore, the Writ Court has declared him ineligible to hold the aforesaid post of ward member of Zila Panchayat and set aside his election ; hence, this Writ Appeal before this Court. Submissions of Appellant. 5. Shri Mrignendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Writ Court has committed an error of law and has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by deciding the issue of the caste of the appellant that he is a candidate of non- O.B.C. Category. The declaration of a cast or cast certificate dispute is well within the jurisdiction of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Madhya Pradesh High Court. By declaring that the caste "Pal Baghele" is a General caste has a far-reaching effect as members of the said community would not get the benefit of OBC in future. The learned Court has decided the caste of the appellant by asking a question in the Court; such a procedure is not permissible in law. The issue "Whether the appellant belongs to the 'Pal Baghele' caste/O.B.C. or not ?" is pending before the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court; hence, till then, the appellant is liable to be continued on the post of member Zilla Panchayat. 6. Shri Mrignendra Singh , learned Senior Counsel, has relied on a judgment passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ] in which the Apex Court has held that the caste certificate is the domain of the Scrutiny constituted by the State Government. He has also placed reliance on the judgments passed in the case of Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (2018) 6 SCC 162 ] and Sandeep Kulshrestha Vs. Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav, [(2023) SCC Online MP 6869]. 7. He has also placed reliance on the judgments passed in the case of Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (2018) 6 SCC 162 ] and Sandeep Kulshrestha Vs. Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav, [(2023) SCC Online MP 6869]. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the wife of the writ petitioner i.e. Smt. Pooja Chowksey had already resorted to the remedy available under the law i.e. Election Petition, and remained unsuccessful; therefore, the election of the appellant cannot be called in question by way of a writ petition. 8. It is further submitted that for contesting the election against the reserved post under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, only the affidavit of the contesting candidate is required to be submitted and not the caste certificate. In the said election, the appellant submitted an affidavit, and nobody raised any objection to it; therefore, the local candidates and the voters who were aware of the fact that the appellant belongs to the OBC community did not raise any objection. Therefore, as per election rules, a candidate/person is required to belong to the SC/ST or OBC category, even if they do not possess a caste certificate. Had there been a requirement for a possession or submission of a certificate, he would have procured the same at the relevant point of time. However, Shri Mrignendra Singh , learned Senior Counsel, fairly admits that even today also the appellant does not have the caste certificate, as the issue is pending before the M.P. High Level Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, when the local villagers, voters and candidates were aware that the appellant belonged to the OBC caste and had not raised any objection and cast votes in his favour, the appellant was permitted to contest the election and won the same. Therefore, now such objection is not tenable specially by seeking writ in the nature of quo warranto. Hence, the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in the Writ Petition No.17520/2022 is liable to be set aside. Submission of Respondent. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6/ respondent herein submits that when the post of Member, Zila Panchayat was reserved for SC/ST/O.B.C. then the candidate belonging to the Unreserved Category is not permitted to contest in the said election. Hence, the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in the Writ Petition No.17520/2022 is liable to be set aside. Submission of Respondent. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6/ respondent herein submits that when the post of Member, Zila Panchayat was reserved for SC/ST/O.B.C. then the candidate belonging to the Unreserved Category is not permitted to contest in the said election. It would amount to a violation of the provisions of the Constitution, which mandates the reservation of seats for reserved category candidates in the local body elections. A minimum level of honesty is expected from a candidate who is going to contest the post according to his caste, and every candidate belonging to the SC/ST/OBC category must possess a caste certificate as proof. Therefore, since a false affidavit was submitted by the appellant, he has rightly been declared ineligible to contest the election. Despite the dismissal of the Election Petition filed by the wife of respondent No.6, the writ of quo warranto is maintainable. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on para 26, 27 and 28 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "K. Venkatachalam Vs. Swamickan and Another [(1994) 4 SCC 526]" . 10. Learned Government Advocate has not specifically supported the appellant or respondents. Conclusion and appreciation of submission. 11. Admittedly, the appellant herein contested the election for a member of the Zila panchayat, which was a reserved post of the OBC Category; he was not in possession of the caste certificate. The caste certificate is always treated to be a valid proof of caste of any candidate; therefore, it is expected from a candidate that he would not contest the election which is specifically reserved or unreserved, as the case may be. By giving a declaration on affidavit about gender, a man cannot contest for a seat reserved for women, but a woman may contest an election for any seat. Likewise, a reserved-category candidate may contest an election for an unreserved seat, but a candidate from the unreserved category cannot contest an election for a seat reserved for the reserved categories. Therefore, seats reserved for women and for SC/ST/O.B.C. candidates are exclusively meant for candidates belonging to those respective categories, which is a mandate of the Constitution as well as the Election laws framed by the Central Government and State Government. 12. Therefore, seats reserved for women and for SC/ST/O.B.C. candidates are exclusively meant for candidates belonging to those respective categories, which is a mandate of the Constitution as well as the Election laws framed by the Central Government and State Government. 12. In the present case, the Election Petition was filed by the wife of respondent No.6- Smt. Pooja Chowksey, who contested the said election against this appellant, which was a remedy available to her, and availed in accordance with law, and the said Election Petition came to be dismissed on a technical ground that no one raised any objection with respect to the caste certificate, after the nomination was filed by the appellant. Although no one raised any objection to the nomination of the appellant, it will not give any right to the appellant to hold the seat reserved for a member of the OBC Category, as this would frustrate the very purpose of reservation in the Panchayat elections . No right can be conferred by the individuals which the person cannot possess under the law. Therefore, the dismissal of the said Election Petition will not come in the way of respondent No.6 to seek a writ in the nature of quo warranto. Though they are husband (Rakesh Chowksey) and wife (Pooja Chowksey), but both have independent standing in the society as well as in the democratic setup of this country. Both are independent citizens and voters of the panchayat; therefore, both have the right to seek relief under the law by adopting an independent proceeding. If the wife has availed of any remedy, that doesn’t debar the husband from availing any remedy and vice versa. The respondent No.6/petitioner therein filed the writ petition, being a voter of that constituency from which the appellant was elected. 13. So far as the issuance of the writ of quo warranto by the Writ Court in a given facts and circumstances is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of "K. Venkatachalam Vs. Swamickan and Another [(1994) 4 SCC 526]" had specifically held that unless there is a clear bar to the jurisdiction of High Court, its power of issuing writs under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised when there is any act which is against any provision of law or violation of any constitutional provisions. Swamickan and Another [(1994) 4 SCC 526]" had specifically held that unless there is a clear bar to the jurisdiction of High Court, its power of issuing writs under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised when there is any act which is against any provision of law or violation of any constitutional provisions. Para 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:- "26. The question that arises for consideration is if in such circumstances the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring that the appellant is not qualified to be a Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Lalgudi Assembly Constituency. From the finding recorded by the High Court it is clear that the appellant in his nomination form impersonated a person known as "Venkatachalam, s/o Pethu" taking advantage of the fact that such a person bears his first name. The appellant would be even criminally liable as he filed his nomination on an affidavit impersonating himself. If in such circumstances he is allowed to continue to sit and vote in the Assembly his action would be a fraud on the Constitution. 27. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao it may be that action under Article 192 could not be taken as the disqualification which the appellant incurred was prior to his election. Various decisions of this Court, which have been referred to by the appellant that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is barred challenging the election of a returned candidate and which we have noted above, do not appear to apply to the case of the appellant now before us. Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in the widest possible terms and unless there is a clear bar to jurisdiction of the High Court its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised when there is any act which is against any provision of law or violative of constitutional provisions and when recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Act for the appropriate relief. In circumstances like the present one the bar of Article 329(b) will not come into play when the case falls under Articles 191 and 193 and the whole of the election process is over. In circumstances like the present one the bar of Article 329(b) will not come into play when the case falls under Articles 191 and 193 and the whole of the election process is over. Consider the case where the person elected is not a citizen of India. Would the court allow a foreign citizen to sit and vote in the Legislative Assembly and not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution? 28. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and declared that the appellant was not entitled to sit in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly with consequent restraint order on him from functioning as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The net effect is that the appellant ceases to be a Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Period of the Legislative Assembly is long since over. Otherwise we would have directed Respondent 2, who is Secretary to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, to intimate to the Election Commission that Lalgudi Assembly Constituency seat has fallen vacant and for the Election Commission to take necessary steps to hold fresh election from that Assembly constituency. Normally in a case like this the Election Commission should invariably be made a party." 14. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Suresh Choudhary vs. Atar Lal Verma [(2006) Vol 3 MPLJ 503]. The Writ Court held that a writ petition in the nature of quo warranto would have been maintainable if the facts were not disputed by the respondent. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the candidate whose election was set aside in the writ appeal. Vide order dated 15.11.2003, the writ appeal No.87/2006 was dismissed. Thereafter, an SLP (Civil) No.21736 of 2006 was preferred before the Apex Court, which too came to be dismissed. In the said case, Atar Lal Verma was elected as a Member of Zila Panchayat by suppressing his conviction under a criminal case, and the writ Court has held that he has no right to hold such a post, and by issuing writ of quo warranto, his election was set aside and the said judgment became final after by Apex Court by dismissing the SLP. Therefore, in this case also, it is an admitted fact that the appellant does not possess the caste certificate of OBC; therefore, there is no declaration by any law that he belongs to the OBC Category. The self-declaration of caste is not sufficient to contest the election. 15. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in W.P. No.17520/2022 passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.