JUDGMENT M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of a decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, district Barabanki, allowing an election petition. 2. The Petitioner, the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent filed their nomination papers for the election to the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. The returning Officer accepted all the nomination papers and a polling took place on 14-12-1955. The Petitioner received the largest number of votes and was declared to be a duly elected Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The 1st Respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the Petitioner mainly on the grounds that the Petitioner was not qualified for being elected as the Pradhan and that an additional list of voters was duly added in the register but the Presiding Officer did not permit the voters, entered in this list, to cast their votes. The Sub-Divisional Officer held on the first point that the Petitioner was born on 3-12-1925 and had not attained the age of 30 years on the date of the filing of the nomination paper, that is 26-11-1955, and he was not qualified to be chosen as the Pradhan. He did not consider the second objection of the 1st Respondent and allowed the election petition setting aside the election of the Petitioner and declaring a casual vacancy in the office. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that, according to the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Petitioner had attained the age of 30 years on the date of the polling and he should, therefore, have been held to be qualified for election to the office. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that the Petitioner should have been qualified to be elected on the date of the nomination and on that date he had not attained the age of 30 years. I do not find any apparent error in this opinion of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that the Petitioner should have been qualified to be elected on the date of the nomination and on that date he had not attained the age of 30 years. I do not find any apparent error in this opinion of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is true that Section 5B of the Panchayat Raj Act is to the- effect that a member of a Gaon Sabha shall not be qualified to be chosen as Pradhan unless he is not less than 30 years of age, and it does not mention that he "should be of that age Even on the date of the nomination; but as is well known the word 'election' sometimes includes the entire proceedings which have to be gone through before a person is declared elected to an office, and I think that is the meaning which is to be attached to the word 'chosen' in Section 5-B of the Act. Certain rules have been framed as regards the filing of nomination papers. After the papers have been filed, there is to be a scrutiny of those papers and Rule 18C, Sub-rule (2) says that the Returning Officer may reject any nomination paper on any one or more of the grounds mentioned in the sub-rule. The first ground given is in Clause (a) and it is regarding the qualification of the candidate to be chosen to fill the seat. If the candidate is found not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat, the nomination paper is to be rejected. Generally in elections, a candidate has to be qualified to be elected to an office on the date he files his nomination papers, and I see no reason for holding that the position under the Panchayat Raj Act is different. Section 5B of the Act has used the word 'chosen' and the same word has been used in Rule 18C(2)(a). The Returning Officer is authorised to reject the nomination paper if the candidate was pot qualified to be chosen to the office. Obviously when he proceeds to consider this matter, he has to consider it on the date that he is scrutinising the nomination papers. 4. The Returning Officer is authorised to reject the nomination paper if the candidate was pot qualified to be chosen to the office. Obviously when he proceeds to consider this matter, he has to consider it on the date that he is scrutinising the nomination papers. 4. In Schofild's Parliamentary Elections the learned author, at Page 79, has said that the position of a minor who became of full age between the date of nomination and election is discussed in the Municipal election case Harford v. Lynskey (1899) 1 Q.B. 63. In that case, the courts held that he was Nevertheless disqualified as it was the eligibility to be nominated Which was the material factor. 5. The other point argued was that the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the Petitioner was born on 3-12-1925 was not correct, but appears that the finding was based on a copy of the birth register of the village Where the Petitioner was born and this copy was filed by the Petitioner himself. Obviously the Petitioner himself relied upon the copy, and the Sub-Divisional Officer has accepted the date of birth as given in that copy. The finding, therefore, cannot be challenged. Besides this, the finding is a finding of fact based on evidence and its correctness cannot be challenged in these proceedings. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the Supreme Court case of Durga Shankar Mehta Vs. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others, AIR 1954 SC 520 In that case the Supreme Court held that the Returning Officer had obviously acted rightly on the evidence before him and his acceptance of the nomination paper could not, therefore, be said to be improper In the instant case it appears that the decision of the Returning Officer was against the evidence furnished by the school certificate which was produced before him by the Respondent and the further evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer, relied upon by the Petitioner himself, showed that the nomination paper of the Petitioner should not have been accepted. The Supreme Court has further observed about the decision of the Returning Officer. 7. "It is certainly not final and the Election Tribunal may, on evidence placed before it, come to a finding that the candidate was not qualified at all. The Supreme Court has further observed about the decision of the Returning Officer. 7. "It is certainly not final and the Election Tribunal may, on evidence placed before it, come to a finding that the candidate was not qualified at all. But the election should be held to be void on the ground of the constitutional disqualification of the candidate and not on the ground that his nomination was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer." In the instant case the Sub-Divisional Officer has held that the nomination paper was improperly accepted. But even if that is a wrong view that he took, it does not alter the result of the case, because, on the proved facts, it must be held that the case fell u/s 12C(1)(b)(ii), that is gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. Section 5B of the Act clearly says that a person less than 30 years of age was not qualified for election and, if a person of that age is declared to have been elected, it must be held to be a gross failure- to comply with the provisions of the Act. I have already indicated above that, in my opinion, the Petitioner should have attained the age of 30 years on the date of the filing on the nomination paper in order to make him eligible for the election. 8. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs in favour of the 1st Respondent.