The main legal point established in the judgment is that in election disputes, the standard of proof in the absence of corrupt practice is preponderance of probabilities, and the eligibility criteria for the post of Sarpanch as per the Haryana Panchayati Raj Amendment Act, 2015, must be met.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Mittal, J.

Election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Mangoraka was held on 17.1.2016. The said post was reserved for a woman candidate and the petitioner and respondent No.1 were candidates there for. As per law, a woman candidate for the post of Sarpanch who possess the educational qualification of 8th Class pass is eligible but the petitioner did not possess the said qualification which motivated respondent No.1 to make a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner/District Election Officer. The State Election Commission Haryana, vide its letter dated 10.1.2016, directed the Deputy Commissioner/District Election Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter but he did not take any action. The petitioner was declared elected and, therefore, respondent No.1 challenged her election by way of an election petition on the ground that she did not possess the requisite educational qualification and, thus, her election is void and should be set aside. Vide impugned order dated 19.1.2018, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Hathin, allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner. A direction was also issued for conducting a fresh election. Aggrieved by this order, the elected candidate has preferred the present writ petition.

2. While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed and, thus, fresh elections have not been held. A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1-Election petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside as the findings therein are perverse and contrary to the record. The petitioner had proved that she is 8th Class pass by way of marksheet Exhibit RW2/A. Her transfer certificate is Exhibit RW2/B. These documents have been proved by RW-2 Ram Gopal, Assistant Teacher, Shri Radha Krishna Puran Middle School, Tilkagarhi, District Mathura, U.P. and, thus, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hathin, was not justified in setting aside her election. The finding that her mark-sheet and transfer certificate are forged documents, cannot be sustained in law because forgery has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and respondent No.1 has failed to provide evidence which could conclusively establish that her school record was forged. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Hathin has passed the impugned order on the basis of inferences and the same is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. His submission is that where corrupt practice is not alleged, the standard of proof is similar to that in a civil case i.e. preponderance of probabilities. He places reliance upon judgment of this Court dated 26.4.2019 passed in CWP No.7141 of 2019 Sanjeeda vs. State of Haryana and others, and three judgments by a Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court passed in CWP No.14662 of 2016 Shaukat vs. Razzak, decided on 4.5.2017, CWP No.13689 of 2017 Smt. Batul Bano vs. Smt. Bismillah, decided on 29.8.2017 and CWP No.16405 of 2016 Heera Singh vs. Jitendra Kumar Gurjar, decided on 6.4.2017.

5. It is not in dispute that vide Haryana Panchayati Raj Amendment Act, 2015, a condition has been inserted in Section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that in case of a woman candidate for the post of Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Panchayat, the minimum qualification is middle pass, which is equivalent to 8th Class. The questions to be decided, therefore, are whether the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Hathin was justified in deciding the election petition on 'preponderance of probabilities', and whether his finding that the petitioner was not 8th Class pass, suffers from any infirmity or is perverse?

6. The first question is whether the learned Court was justified in deciding the case on preponderan