Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.N. Bhandari, J.
Rukmani Devi and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sita and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17586 of 2017
Decided On : 02-01-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj with Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate
A candidate must possess the required qualification, as prescribed by the relevant law, to contest an election.
Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - QUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATE - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 - SECTIONS 14(1)(A), 15(1)(A) - COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATION OF CLASS 8TH TO CONTEST THE ELECTION FOR THE POST OF SARPANCH, PANCHAYAT SAMITI MALWAS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order allowing an election petition filed by the non-petitioner, who claimed that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification of class 8th to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Malwas.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification of class 8th to contest the election, as evidenced by the overwriting on the transfer certificate and the lack of other documents to support the claim of qualification.
Issues: Whether the petitioner possessed the required qualification of class 8th to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Malwas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification of class 8th to contest the election, as evidenced by the overwriting on the transfer certificate and the lack of other documents to support the claim of qualification. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to produce the Principal of the school to verify the transfer certificate, while the non-petitioner failed to produce the Principal to prove their case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the lower court that allowed the election petition and declared the non-petitioner as the elected candidate.
Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J.
1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18th September, 2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, District Dausa, whereby, the election petition filed by the non-petitioner No.1 has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without evidence disputing the qualification of the non-petitioner, the election petition preferred by the non-petitioner against election on the post of Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Malwas has been allowed. The petitioner is in possession of qualification required for contesting the election of Sarpanch. In view of the above, impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference of transfer certificate of the school at Annexure - 4 to show that the petitioner possessed the qualification of class 8th from Happy Field Public School at Delhi. The other documents referred by the petitioner is at Annexure - 6 where the Principal of the School had endorsed the documents showing qualification of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a further reference of the application form at Annexure - 8. Ignoring the documents aforesaid, finding has been recorded by the court below. It is even in ignorance of the fact that the non-petitioner-plaintiff had failed to produce Principal of the school to prove that neither transfer certificate nor any other document was issued by him. It is further stated that Officer of the Education Department was not having authority to make statement about existence of school at Delhi. An Officer of the Education Department of State of Rajasthan can make statement about existence of school only if it is within his jurisdiction and not for the school outside the State of Rajasthan. The Court below has yet relied on the statement and the other evidence to record finding against the petitioner for acceptance of the election petition preferred by the non-petitioner. For the aforesaid reason also, impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Other than aforesaid, no other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Court below. It is submitted that the documents submitted by the non-petitioner were sufficient to prove that the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification. As per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as amended, a candidate is required to possess qualification of 8th to contest the election of Sarpanch. Since, the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification, a false declaration was made to contest the election. The non-petitioner preferred an election petition and produced evidence to prove declaration made by the petitioner about qualification to be false. A criminal case was also registered against the Principal of school, who had issued the certificate fraudulently. The Court below has not relied on the documents pertaining to lodging of criminal case, but, according to them, it cannot be said to be a waste paper also. The charge sheet in the criminal case has already been filed.
7. So far as the transfer certificate at Annexure - 4 is concerned, it has overwriting in the year because the year 2000 has been overwritten as 1976-77. The fact aforesaid has been taken note by the court below. The Officer of the Education Department has been produced to show that Happy Field Public School was not existing at the time when the petitioner alleged to have taken qualification of class 8th. Taking into consideration the fact aforesaid and evidence to prove the case, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner to challenge the impugned order herein deserves to be set aside.
8. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is a case where the petitioner and non-petitioner contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Malwas. As per the amended provis
