Mr. Alok Sharma, J.

1. The two petitions, one filed by the returned candidate (hereinafter ‘the RC’) and the other by the election petitioner (hereinafter the EP’) both challenge the judgment dated 3-3-2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge Dausa, where under the election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawar Panchayat Samiti Mahawa District Dausa has been set aside and a declaration issued that the EP would stand elected as Sarpanch. While the RC has challenged the impugned judgment setting aside of her election as Sarpanch, and declaring the EP elected to the said post, the EP has challenged the judgment of the trial court to the extent of its findings on issues No.1,2,4A and 4B, all against her. Therefore, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawar Panchayat Samiti Mahawa District Dausa was called in question under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1994’) read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1994’) by the EP inter alia alleging that the RC had not passed class VIII, from a recognised school, the minimum requisite educational qualification for contesting election to the post of Sarpanch under the Act of 1994. It was contended that the documents filed by the RC with regard to her class VIII pass were not genuine but forged and fabricated and yet fraudulently used to the RC’s knowledge. The RC’s election was thus liable to be set aside. It was further alleged that votes clearly and unequivocally cast in favour of EP were irregularly/wrongly folded by the polling party due to which some of them came to be rendered invalid and rejected for reason of rubbing over against the name of other candidates in the contest, to the EP’s disadvantage. The prayer made in the election petition was thus also for proper counting of votes cast at the election in issue.

3. On notice on the election petition, the RC filed reply of denial stating that there was no illegality in conducting the election or irregularity in counting of votes. It was stated that at the time of counting of votes the EP made no complaint to the concerned officers in regard thereto. The RC claimed that she had passed class VIII and was eligible to contest the election.

4. Non applicants No.2,7,11 and 13 filed separate reply and submitted that polling officers committed illegality by not considering the complaint of the EP’s agent with regard to illegalities during counting of votes, missing of a bundle of 49 votes and rejection of 245 votes. However subsequently these non applicants did not appear in the court and were proceeded against ex-parte.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

1- D;k fnukad 24-01-2015 dks xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksMk rglhy egok ds ljiap in ij gq;s pquko esa erx.kuk ds nkSjku vfu;ferrk dh x;h\ & ;kph

2- D;k ;kph fnukad 24-01-2015 dks xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksM+k rglhy egok ds ljiap in gq;s pquko esa Mkys x;s dqy eri=ksa dh iqu% erx.kuk djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & ;kph

3- D;k ;kph Lo;a dks lokZf/kd er izkIr gksus ds dkj.k xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksM+k] rglhy egok dk ljiap ?kksf"kr djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & ;kph

4- D;k v;kph la[;k ,d }kjk 8oha ikl dh QthZ vadrkfydk funsZ’ku i= ds lkFk yxkdj xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksM+k rglhy egok nkSlk ds ljiap in dk pquko yM+k x;k gSA bl dkj.k ;kph v;kph la[;k ,d ds pquko dks ‘kwU; ?kksf"kr djok;s tkus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & ;kph

4-d & D;k ernku ds nkSjku iksfyax ikVhZ ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ernkrkvksa ls eri= Nhudj eri= dks mYVk QksYM fd;k x;k ftlls er i= fjtsDV gq;s gS o ernku esa xM+cM+h gq;h gS\

4-[k & D;k ;kfpdkdrkZ ;k mlds erx.kuk vfHkdrkZ }kjk fyf[kr esa iquZerx.kuk dk vkosnu fd;k ftls erx.kuk vf/kdkjh us ugha ekuk] blfy;s ;kfpdkdrkZ iquZerx.kuk djok;s tkus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & ;kph

6. In support of the election petition, the EP examine