The burden of proof on the petitioner to establish the recognition of the institution/board from which he claimed to have passed the matriculation examination and the limited scope of judicial review in cases involving the writ of certiorari.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Challenge herein is to the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner , Panchkula, removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Bhoj Paunta in exercise of the powers vested under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1994 Act'). On 19.02.2020, the appeal before the Principal Secretary, Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana was also dismissed.

2. In the elections held in January, 2016, the writ petitioner was elected to the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The writ petitioner claims that he is matriculate, hence, eligible to hold the office of Sarpanch. The Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, has removed the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch after finding that the petitioner has not passedmatriculation examination from any recognized institution/board. Thus, the primary issue which arises in the present case is "whether the petitioner has passed matriculation examination from any recognized institution/board or not?

3. The State of Haryana amended the 1994 Act in the year 2015 by the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015. Relevant amendment for the purpose of decision of this case is in Section 175 of the 1994 Act. It has been provided that no person shall be a Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad unless he has passed matriculation examination or its equivalent examination from any recognized institution/board. For women candidates as well as candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, the minimum qualification is middle (8 th class). For women candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, the minimum qualification is 5 th class, if she wants to hold the office of Panch. Relevant part of Section 175 is extracted as under:-

175. Disqualification. No person shall be a Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or continue as such who-

xx xx xx xx

(V) has not passed matriculation examination or its equavalent examination from any recognized institution/board;

Provided that in case of a woman candidate or a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, the minimum qualification shall be middle pass;

Provided further that in case of a woman candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste contesting election for the post of Panch, the minimum qualificationshall be 5 th pass."

4. While filing nomination, the writ petitioner claimed that he had cleared his matriculation examination from Haryana State Education Board, Bhiwani, in the year 1995. Whereas, he annexed matriculation certificate issued in the year 2009 by the Council of Secondary Education, Mohali. On the complaint of Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, directed Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, to enquire into the complaint. The enquiry was ordered on three following charges as enumerated in the complaint:-

1. That Sh. Dharampal Sharma Sarpanch gram Panchayat has appended matriculation certificate issued by Council of Middle Education, Mohali along with nomination papers submitted during Panchayat election which is not recognised. Therefore, an action be taken against him as per rules.

2. That Sh. Dharampal Sharma's sister-in-law Smt. Dhanwanti Devi was elected as Sarpanch Gram Panchayat in the year 2010. During her tenure Sh. Dharampal Sharma embezzled lacs of rupees resulting in registration of an FIR No.254 dated 11.11.2012 at Police Station-Chandi Mandir.

3. That on 16.09.2014, as per order of the Lokayukt Haryana in the enquiry of embezzlement of lakhs of rupees, Smt. Dhanwanti Devi Sarpanch was removed from the post of Sarpanch. The Block Office Morni was also directed to recover the financial loss caused to the Gram Panchayat, however, the same has also not been recovered till date."

5. The Enquiry Officer decided not to proceed with charges No.2and 3 keeping in view the pendency of the proceedings before