( 1 ) THE question that has arisen for consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether a lady belonging to a Rana Rajput caste (a forward caste), after marriage to a member of a Jatav caste (a Scheduled Caste) belongs to the Jatav caste or does she continue to remain a member of the Rana Rajput caste.

( 2 ) THIS question has arisen because of an election petition bearing ECP No. 02/2003 having been filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the election of the petitioner.

( 3 ) AN election was held for the post of a Municipal councillor in respect of a seat reserved for a Scheduled caste woman from Ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar Ward of municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assembly Constituency no. 13, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The election was held on 27th March, 2002 and the results were published on 28th march, 2002. The Petitioner was declared elected having got 14,757 votes as against Respondent No. 2 who got 13,755 votes.

( 4 ) THE result of the election was challenged by respondent No. 1 who is an elector from the same ward. The ground of challenge was that the Petitioner was not qualified to contest the election from a seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman because she belonged, by birth, to a Rana Rajput caste, which is a forward caste. It was said that although she may have got married to a person belonging to the Jatav community (Scheduled caste), she did not belong to that caste.

( 5 ) THE Petitioner contested the election petition and averred, inter alia, that she was married to Shri ghanshyam who is a Jatav, which is a Scheduled Caste in delhi. She stated that by virtue of her marriage, she belonged to the Jatav community and had a certificate indicating that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste at the time of filing her nomination and at the time of her election.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Additional District judge who heard the election petition:-

1. WHETHER the petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the present petition?

2. WHETHER the present election petition is defective as alleged in para 3 of preliminary objection of W. S. of resp. no. 1 and if so, its effect.

3. WHETHER this petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and its effect?

4. WHETHER the respondent no. 1 belongs to a scheduled caste category?

5. WHETHER the respondent no. 1 acquired the status of a scheduled caste by virtue of her marriage with a Jatav notified as scheduled caste category for the purpose of her eligibility to contest municipal election in Delhi?

6. WHETHER the election of respondent no. 1 as a municipal councilor from Ward No. 20 is liable to be declared void on facts mentioned in the petition?

7. IF issue no. 6 is decided in affirmative whether resp. no. 2 is entitled to be declared elected from Ward no. 20 as municipal councilor?

( 7 ) IN respect of Issues No. 4 and 5, which are really the key issues, the learned Judge held in the impugned judgement and order dated 17th August, 2004 that the Petitioner did not acquire the status of a Scheduled caste merely by virtue of her marriage to Shri Ghanshyam and that she had manipulated the Scheduled Caste certificate in her favour. Consequently, these issues were decided against the Petitioner with the result that her election was held null and void.

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties were heard on 1st and 2nd November, 2004 when orders were reserved.

( 10 ) THE admitted position is that the Petitioner belonged to a forward caste by birth and that she was married to Shri Ghanshyam who belongs to the Jatav caste. What has to be determined is whether by virtue of her marriage, the Petitioner becomes a member of the Jatav scheduled Caste or not. In fact, no other issue was urged by either of the learned counsel appearing in the matter.

( 11 ) ARTICLE 366 (24) of the Const