Rajasthan High Court Upholds Sarpanch 's Disqualification Under Two-Child Norm, Cites Primacy of Class 10th Marksheet for DOB

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Anoop KumarDhand , has dismissed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of a Sarpanch, affirming the Election Tribunal's decision which relied primarily on Class 10th marksheets to determine the dates of birth of the petitioner's children. The court upheld the disqualification under Section 19(l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which prohibits individuals with more than two children born after November 27, 1995, from holding Panchayati Raj Institution posts.

Case Background

The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, District Alwar. His election was challenged by Respondent No. 1 via an election petition before the Additional Senior Civil Judge No.3, Alwar (acting as the Election Tribunal). The challenge was based on the ground that the petitioner had two children born after the statutory cut-off date of 27.11.1995, making him ineligible under Section 19(l) of the Act.

The petitioner had declared the dates of birth (DOB) of his children Rajesh and Mamta as 05.07.1992 and 15.04.1994 respectively in his nomination form. Respondent No. 1 contended that their actual DOBs, as per their Class 10th marksheets issued by the Board of Secondary Education, were 05.07.1996 and 15.07.1998, both falling after the cut-off date.

The Election Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 15.02.2023, allowed the election petition, declared the petitioner disqualified, and directed the District Collector to proceed according to law. Subsequently, the Block Development Officer initiated the process for bye-elections on 10.04.2023. The petitioner challenged both the Tribunal's judgment and the order initiating bye-elections in the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions: * The petitioner, through Senior Counsel, argued that the DOBs mentioned in the nomination form for Rajesh and Mamta were different due to inadvertent mistakes. * He asserted that the correct DOBs were 01.01.1995 for Rajesh (based on Government Upper Primary School, Toda records) and 15.04.1994 for Mamta (based on Madhav Shishu Niketan Secondary School, Jaipur records). * School admission forms and certificates (Annexures A-5, A-6, A-1) were submitted as evidence, supported by the testimony of the Headmaster (DW-3). * It was argued that the Tribunal wrongly prioritized the Class 10th marksheets (Ex. 20, Ex. 21) over the school admission records, which were created much earlier and without any foreseeable benefit of incorrect entry. * Reliance was placed on precedents like Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha (AIR 1965 SC 282) and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (AIR 1988 SC 1796) regarding the assessment of evidence.

Respondent's Defence: * Counsel for the respondents countered that the Class 10th marksheets, showing DOBs as 05.07.1996 ( Rajesh ) and 15.07.1998 ( Mamta ), were accurate and reliable evidence from the Board of Secondary Education. * The authenticity of the school admission forms was questioned, noting they were allegedly submitted by the children's uncle, who was not examined as a witness. * It was pointed out that Mamta 's birthplace was Thanagaji , raising doubts about her admission to a school in Jaipur. * Crucially, it was highlighted that the petitioner's son, Rajesh , had used his Class 10th marksheet (with the 1996 DOB) for employment, and neither the petitioner nor his children had ever sought correction of the DOBs in the Board's records. * The Tribunal's findings were defended as being based on cogent reasons and proper appreciation of evidence.

Legal Principles and High Court's Analysis

The High Court examined the core issue: whether the petitioner had more than two children after the 27.11.1995 cut-off date specified in Section 19(l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

The court noted the Tribunal's findings: * The school admission forms were deemed unreliable as the person submitting them (uncle) was not examined. * The reason for Mamta 's schooling in Jaipur despite residing in Thanagaji was found unconvincing. * Significant weight was given to the fact that the petitioner's son used the Class 10th marksheet DOB for employment, and no steps were taken to correct the alleged errors in the Board records.

Justice Dhand referred to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which grants relevance and credibility to entries made in public or official records by public servants in the discharge of their duty. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the evidentiary value of matriculation certificates: * Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750: Matriculation certificate given precedence over other DOB evidence. * Parg Bhati v. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 744: Matriculation certificate treated as conclusive proof of DOB if available and not contradicted by credible material. * Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of UP (2022) 8 SCC 602: Affirmed that public documents like matriculation certificates maintained in discharge of official duty have greater credibility (Para 33.9, 33.10).

The court observed:

"It is also not in dispute that the change of date of birth of Rajesh and Mamta in their marksheet of Class 10th issued by the Board of Secondary Education had attained finality as the same was not challenged before an appropriate forum. It was not within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to overlook the mark-sheets issued by a competent officer of the Board of Secondary Education..."

The court also highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner's own submissions regarding his son Rajesh 's date of birth (three different dates presented across the nomination form and court proceedings).

"The petitioner is not sure about the date of birth of son Rajesh ... Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has not come before the Court with the correct date of birth of his son Rajesh ."

Considering the finality of the Board's records (as they remained unchallenged) and the Supreme Court's stance on the high evidentiary value of matriculation certificates as public documents under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's conclusion.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the Election Tribunal correctly determined that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 19(l) of the Act, having two children ( Rajesh , born 05.07.1996, and Mamta , born 15.07.1998) after the cut-off date of 27.11.1995.

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Election Tribunal's judgment dated 15.02.2023 and the subsequent order dated 10.04.2023 initiating bye-elections. The court directed the Election Officer to declare the results of the already conducted bye-elections for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, forthwith. No costs were awarded.