The disqualification provision under Section 13-A (1) (h) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 should be interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense, and the petitioner's qualification from any recognised institution or board would suffice to avoid disqualification.

ORDER

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandeic Covid-19 situation and per instructions.

2. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the second respondent i.e. State Election Commissioner, Haryana exercising the powers under Section 13 (I) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and in terms of which the petitioner has been removed from the post of President, Municipal Committee, Dharuhera.

3. Brief facts which are not in dispute may be noticed.

4. The second respondent vide notification dated 03.12.2020 issued a programme for conducting general elections for the seat of President and members of all the wards of Municipal Council Rewari, Municipal Committee, Sampla (Rohtak), Dharuhera (Rewari) and Ukalana(Hisar). Elections of these municipalities were conducted on 27.12.2020 and the result was declared on 30.12.2020. Petitioner herein was declared elected as President of Municipal Committee, Dharuhera.

5. One Sh.Sandeep Bohra along with others filed a petition on 06.01.2021 in the office of the second respondent alleging that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification at the time of election under Section 13-A (1) (h) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') as he had not passed the Matriculation examination or its equivalent examination from any recognised institution/board. Copy of such complaint/petition was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioners, Rewari to enquire into the matter. Inquiry was marked to the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Kosli. The inquiry report was submitted returning findings that even though the Matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner had been issued by the Central Board of Higher Education (Uttam Nagar), New Delhi but the same cannot be seen as valid qualification since any examination conducted by the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi is not recognised equivalent to the same category of examination conducted by the Haryana School Education Board nor is it included in the list of same category of the Board. Based on such findings the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.01.2021 calling upon the petitioner to produce evidence so as to prove that he had passed the Matriculation examination or equivalent examination from a recognised institution/board failing which it would be presumed that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification at the time of election and action against him would then be initiated under Section 13 (I) of the Act. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 22.02.2021 and a copy of the same stands appended as Annexure P-3.

6. The second respondent thereafter has taken a view that petitioner has incurred a disqualification under Section 13-A (1) (h) of the Act as also under Rule 21 (1) (p) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules. 1978 ('the Rules for short) and upon exercise of powers under Section 13 (1) of the Act has removed the petitioner form the post of President, Municipal Committee, Dharuhera vide impugned order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-4).

7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner had passed his Matriculation in 1981 from the Central Board of Higher Education at Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and which is a recognised board. It is contended that as per Section 13-A (1) (h) the requirement is of possessing an educational qualification of Matriculation or its equivalent from a recognised institution/board and which the petitioner fulfils. Under the statutory provision there was no requirement that the qualification should be from a particular institution/board and to be recognised by the Haryana School Education Board. It is argued that the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) is as such illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. In support of his contention that the Matriculation qualification possessed by the petitioner is from a recogni