HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 840 of 2024

02 DECEMBER, 2025

Reshma … Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand.

Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 7

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Sabha Nagla Khurd, Block Bhadrabad, District Haridwar in the last election held in 2022. A complaint was made that she does not possess the requisite educational qualification for holding the Office as Pradhan. Copy of the complaint was supplied to petitioner and a notice was also issued to her, asking her to put forth her version. In her reply, petitioner stated that she passed 8^th Standard from Shanti Modern Junior High School, Bhauri Bharapur, Roorkee, District Haridwar, during

Academic Session 2007-08.

2. The complaint was referred to Deputy Education Officer (Roorkee), Haridwar for enquiry. Deputy Education Officer in his report stated that Shanti Modern Junior High School was granted recognition by the Competent Authority, for the first time, on 02.12.2008 and it was not a recognized school earlier. Record reveals that petitioner passed 8^th

Standard during academic session 2007-08.

3. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent no. 7 points out from letter dated 07.07.2023 issued by Deputy Education Officer that petitioner was never a student of Shanti Modern Junior High School.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by Deputy Education Officer was wrongly relied by Prescribed Authority/Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar for disqualifying petitioner under Section 8(1)(q) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, while Prescribed Authority was required to hold the enquiry himself. He further submits that there is no requirement of passing Middle/Eighth examination from a recognized institution/Board for a women candidate and such requirement is applicable only to candidates who are not specified in proviso to Section 8(1)(q) of the Act. Section 8(1)(q) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 is extracted below for ready reference:-

“8. Disqualification for membership of Gram Panchayat:

(1) A person shall be diqaulaified for being appointed, a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and member o f a Gram Panchayat, if he –

(q) He has not passed High School or equivalent examination from any recognized institution/Board.

[Provided that in the matter of candidate of General Category women, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidate has not passed minimum Middle/Eight examination;]”

5. Section 8 of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 enumerates the grounds on which a person may be declared disqualified for being appointed as Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Member of a Gram Panchayat. Section 8(1)(q) thereof provides that a person shall be disqualified for being appointed as a Pradhan, Up- Pradhan or Member of a Gram Panchayat, if he has not passed High School or equivalent examination from any recognized institution/Board, however the minimum qualification required in respect of women and members of Other Backward Classes/Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe would be Middle examination or Eight Standard. Petitioner contends that the expression ‘recognized institution/Board’ is missing in the proviso, therefore, this condition would not be applicable to the candidates belonging to the General Category Women, Other Backward Class and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

6. Section 8(5) of the said Act provides that if any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification mentioned in the Act, then the question shall be referred to the prescribed authority and his decision shall, subject to t