The evidential value of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate carries greater weight than other certificates, and the correctness of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate cannot be refused to be accepted.

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

The present appeal arises from the order, dated 19.11.2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant and affirming the order, dated 20.03.2013, passed in Case No.32 of 2012, of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, disqualifying her election as ‘Pramukh’. The State Election Commissioner, by the order impugned in the writ petition, has held that the writ petitioner-appellant was not qualified to be elected as ‘Pramukh’ inasmuch as she was under aged on the date of filing of her nomination paper.

2. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the findings of the State Election Commissioner that she was under 21 years of age on the date of filing of her nomination and was, therefore, not qualified to be elected as ‘Pramukh’, her case before the learned Single Judge being that she was above 21 years of age on the date of filing of the nomination and, thus, stood qualified to be elected as Pramukh.

3. In support of her submission that she was above 21 years of age on the date of filing of the nomination, she produced a copy of a certificate granted by the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Kasimpur, a doctor’s certificate as well as a certificate granted by the Head Master, Ganga Karharya School.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that neither the petitioner nor her parents ever challenged the correctness of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate and as per her matriculation certificate, the writ petitioner-appellant was under aged on the date of filing of nomination and was, thus, estopped from taking a plea that her date of birth, mentioned in the matriculation certificate, was not correct.

5. The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, affirmed the order of the State Election Commissioner that the appellant was grossly under age being only 17 years 10 months 13 days old on the date of filing of nomination as against the statutory requirement of 21 years, which was the qualifying age for being elected as ‘Pramukh’.

6. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has reiterated, in this appeal, more or less the same submissions, which had been made before the learned single Judge. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant maintains that the writ petitioner-appellant was 22 years old on the date of filing of her nomination and it is not uncommon that correct age is, generally, not mentioned in the school register, particularly, with respect to girls.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents herein submits that the writ petitioner-appellant has rightly been held not qualified to be elected as ‘Pramukh’, because she was under aged.

8. Section 136(1)(b) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, mandates that no one, under the age of 21 years, can be elected to the post of ‘Pramukh’. The appellant has placed emphasis upon certificates granted by the Mukhiya of her Gram Panchayat, the Head Master of the local Middle School and a local doctor.

9. In our view, neither of the said three certificates would denude the probative value of a date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate so as to have an overriding effect. The Supreme Court, in State of State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Sharma, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 719, has held as follows:

“2………….. The date of birth, as recorded in the matriculation examination certificate carries a greater evidential value than the evidential value attached to the certificate given by the retired headmaster showing the date of birth of the respondents. Such an evidence is not to be preferred when, admittedly, the date of birth of the respondent as recorded in the matriculation examination certificate was 19.04.1935. The Administrative Tribunal erred in relying on the certificate issued by the retired headmaster as well as the horoscope furnished by the respondent”.

10. We further find that the appellant had not made any prayer before t