The absence of a defined standard for literacy in election law means that a candidate cannot be disqualified based on unreasonable tests of reading and writing abilities.

JUDGMENT :

B.P.ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose on behalf of Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party.

2. Present Petitioner is the elected candidate for the Office of Sarpanch of Bayangdihi Gram Panchayat under Dhamnagar Block in the district of Bhadrak. She won the election with a huge margin of votes, securing 2281 votes.

3. The defeated candidate, who is the present Opposite Party, filed Election Misc. Case No.01 of 2022 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dhamnagar challenging the election of the Petitioner on the ground that, she does not know how to read and write Odia. Learned trial judge upon adjudication allowed the election petition by declaring the election of the Petitioner as void and disqualified the Petitioner for not able to read and write Odia as required under Section 11(b) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short, “the OGP Act”). The Petitioner challenged said judgment of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dhamnagar in appeal, i.e. FAO No.87 of 2023 before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak. Learned District Judge, Bhadrak in the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2024 has confirmed the order of learned Civil Judge disqualifying the Petitioner from the Office of Sarpanch. Both the orders of the learned trial judge as well as the appellate court are questioned by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. The short point falls for determination in the present writ petition that, whether the Petitioner is able to read and write Odia as per the prescription under Section 11(b) of the OGP Act ?

5. Section 11(b) of the OGP Act stipulates that, no member of Grama Sasan shall be eligible to stand for election if he is unable to read and write Odia. At the same time, neither OGP Act, 1964 nor Odisha Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1965 do prescribe any standard or modality for testing the ability for reading and writing.

6. This Court in Usha Sahoo vs. Ambika Sahoo and another , 2011 (1) OLR – 499 have held as follows:-

“6. This Court in the case of Labangalata Mallick -v-Mandakini Mallick and others, 2010 (Supp.-I) OLR 73 dealing with a similar question relied upon the decision in the case of Kalabati Jena –v-Dhaneswar Jena, 2009 (Supp.–II) OLR 334 distinguishing the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Mrs. Suryakanti Mishra –v- State of Orissa and seven others, 2005 (Supp.) OLR 906 and laid down that no hard and fast rule can be prescribed for finding out as to whether a person who was a contestant in the Grama Panchayat election knows how to read and write Oriya or not. Such conclusion should be drawn from the analysis of facts of each case. No doubt, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari is not to reappreciate the evidence on records, but, however, if it is found that the conclusion drawn by the authorities/courts below is based on surmises and conjectures, it can quash such order or orders.

7. In the case of Kalabati Jena (supra), this Court dealing with the phrase “Read and Write Oriya” held that the said phrase has neither been defined in the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act nor in the Election Rules framed thereunder. Keeping the legislative intent in view for introducing such a disqualification clause in case of Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch inasmuch as to find out the object to be achieved by such introduction of the disqualification clause, this Court concluded that a person, who can to some extent, read and write Oriya, cannot be said to be unable to read and write Oriya. The standard of reading and writing Oriya havi