JUDGMENT 1. This is a writ petition in an election matter under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. The petitioner, Dhanna, is a villager and was elected as Sarpanch of the village panchayat in the year 1978. He functioned as Sarpanch of the village Panchayat, Gangyasar till the next election which took place in December, 1981. 2. On 14th December, 1981, the petitioner was again elected for the same post of Sarpanch. The non-petitioner Ram Niwas, filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the various grounds. One of the grounds which ultimately weighed with the election Tribunal and which was accepted, was that he is not qualified to become Sarpanch because he is not able to read and write Hindi as required by Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Issue no. 1 which is relevant for the purpose of writ petition reads as under : D;k izR;k{kh x.k la[;k 1 o 2 vui<+ gS tks fgUnh iM+uk fy[kuk ugh tkurs gSa] blfy;s ljiap in dk pquko yM+us ds vk;ksX; gS\ Both the parties examined evidence in support of their respective contentions on issue no. 1. Ramniwas examined himself, Ratanaram as PW3, Rameshwar PW4. The present petitioner Dhanna examined himself in defence as DW 1. On 13th May, 1982. Dhanna Ram was required to read passage No. 2 and No. 12 from the written statement. During the cross examination, the petitioner was made to write the Hindi expression by dictation of the learned counsel for the respondent. The sentence which was dictated was that. : vklw flag 'ks[kkor dks uksfVl fn;k tkosA This was written by the petitioner as under. vklw flag 'ks[kkor dks uksfVl fn;k tkosA The learned Munsif Magistrate after bearing the arguments came to the conclusion that the petitioner, Dhanna, cannot read and write Hindi. 3. Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the finding. The substance of the submission is that on the test held by the Election Tribunal in which the petitioner was made to write and read Hindi, the petitioner depicted his ability to read and write Hindi very well arid therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is based firstly on misconception and misinterpretation of the relevant provisions of Section 13(l) of the Act and secondly on wrong and erroneous interpretation of the knowledge of reading and writing depicted by Dhanna. Mr. Dhankhar placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Begaram v. The Collector, Sikar (1961 RLW 560) , in which this Court observed as under : "Sec. 13(1) of the Act only prescribes bare literacy in Hindi. Inability to red difficult passage fluently and to understand it would not show that the petitioner is not able to read Hindi within the meaning of the Act. In the existing state of literacy in Rajasthan it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act to prescribe such a high degree of literacy. If official publications are not issued in very simple language the standard of proficiency needed for understanding such literature cannot be imported in interpreting the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. (Para 16) "Hindi" as used in section 13 of the Act does not mean literary Hindi only but includes the various dialects spoken in different parts of Rajasthan. These dialects are all fortes of Hindi. If a person can read and write one of the local dialects he would be duly qualified to be elected as a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch even though be may not be conversant with literary Hindi or Hindi used in Government publications. (Para 16)" 4. Shri M.R. Calla on the contrary has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact and this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. howsoever erroneous it may be It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the requirement of reading and writing Hindi as required tinder Section 13 of the Act. 5. Before I proceed to examine the question whether I can interfere in writ jurisdiction in this case and whether the finding of the election Tribunal warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, it would be proper to mention as to what is the requirement of reading and writing Hindi under the Act. Section 13(1) reads as under : "13 (1). Every Panchayat shall have a Sarpanch who must be a person qualified to be elected as a Panch and able to read and write Hindi and Mall he elected by electors of the whole Panchayat circle in the prescribed manner." 6. The above would show that the crux of the matter is that he must be able to read and write Hindi. The above would show that the crux of the matter is that he must be able to read and write Hindi. The ability mentioned in Section 13 (1) only means reading and writing Hindi. No standard or degrees of efficiency or proficiency in the knowledge of Hindi have been prescribed. In Begaram's case (supra) this Court had occasion to consider the implications of S 13 (1)) of the Act it was expressly held that for the purpose of S 13(1) of the Act, it was never intended that a Sarpanch should be able to read and write literary Hindi. This Court further interpreted it to mean that Hindi would include even the various dialects spoken in various parts of Rajasthan and they are all forms of Hindi Even if a person can read and write one of the local dialects he would be equally qualified to be elected as Sarpanch. This Court, on a thoughtful consideration of the entire matter was of the view that it is not necessary for a Sarpanch that he should be conversant with Hindi or Hindi used in Government publications. In para 12 of Begaram's decision (supra) the exact words which were dictated and which were wrote have been mentioned and the mistakes have been noticed. Thereafter the Court held as under : "It is obvious from the writing made by the petitioner that he fulfils the qualification of bare literacy so far as writing in Hindi is concerned. This writing shows that if he wishes to convey some message he can do so in writing. That is all that is required of him by law." Various mistakes which were committed by the Sarpanch in that case were noticed in paras 12, 13, and 14 It was noticed that the passage which lie was asked to read was from some document which required a high degree of proficiency in Hindi in order to read it fluently and to understand it. The court then emphasised that all that was required was bare literacy and not high degree of proficiency. 7. Shri Calla submitted that firstly this judgment has not laid down the correct law and secondly, it was based on conditions which were prevalent in the year 1960. According to Shri Calla, the literacy has now increased in the villages and, therefore, this Court should insist on high proficiency in Hindi for a Sarpanch. 7. Shri Calla submitted that firstly this judgment has not laid down the correct law and secondly, it was based on conditions which were prevalent in the year 1960. According to Shri Calla, the literacy has now increased in the villages and, therefore, this Court should insist on high proficiency in Hindi for a Sarpanch. Shri Calla wishes to submit before this Court the data or the statistics of the adult education in the villages but, even thought the case remained pending for sufficient time for this purpose, no such data has been furnished so far. 8. The question which requires consideration is whether the standard or degree of proficiency in Hindi which a Sarpanch is required to possess the ability should be such as that of high degree of proficiency of higher standard or it must be a mere or bare literacy as held in Begaram's case (supra). 9. In Begaram's case (supra), Rule 13(1) of the Town Municipalities Act, 1951 was noticed. In that rule, a person can become a candidate for election to a man cipality if he was capable of reading and writing Hindi or was otherwise literate. In 2. Ismial v. Rajasthan State (1958 R.L.W. 286) , a Division Bench of this Court was interpreting the above qualification for a member of the Municipal Board and it held that it provides simple qualification of reading and writing Hindi. For the reasons best known to the legislators, the requirement of literacy of Hindi or any literacy has not been insisted upon in the new Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 10. Similarly, under the Representation of the Peoples Act, there is no requirement of literacy for the candidate of Assembly or Parliament. It is not for this Court to probe into the intention of' such an omission in the qualification for the members the of legislature or the members of the Parliament, the member of the Municipal Council and also for holding important posts in the highest hierarchy of the Government by way of elected offices including the Prime Minister or President of India. 11. However, the above legislative schemes are being noticed by me only with limited purpose for considering whether the decision of Begaram's case(supra) requires reconsideration and whether this court's view that bare literacy is enough for a Sarpanch is one, which is not in consonance with the legislative intent and spirit of scheme. 11. However, the above legislative schemes are being noticed by me only with limited purpose for considering whether the decision of Begaram's case(supra) requires reconsideration and whether this court's view that bare literacy is enough for a Sarpanch is one, which is not in consonance with the legislative intent and spirit of scheme. Obviously, a Sarpanch is to be elected from a village. Undoubtedly, the standard of education and litracy in villages is too meagre and scanty. In spite of efforts, the adult population of the villages even now is far from being literate, not to talk of the standard of the literacy or of having high degree of proficiency. By and large a person who is to be elected a Sarpanch is likely to be all elderly person respected in the village. The legislature at the time of enactment of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act which was enacted in the year 1953 could not expect that the literary persons took their birth in the villages at a time when education was too scarce and rare and, the villages were mostly governed the feudals before the independence when the education was also kept away from the weaker sections and the poor people of the villages and if was a privilege of very small selected segment of the higher startata would be available. While interpreting the law, this Court cannot shut its eye to the hard realities and the conditions which were prevalent when the law was enacted. It appears that as a Sarpanch was required to discharge many executive and administrative functions being held in the Panchayat, bare literacy was insisted upon by the legislature so that he could sign the papers and also do sonic reading and writing work. It was in this spirit that in Begaram's case this courts held that even if one is not having any knowledge of Hindi but, he has got knowledge of any other dialect, then also, he can contest the election of Sarpanch. This part of the judgment of Begaram's case (supra) has neither received due attention nor, it has been properly understood so far. This part of the judgment of Begaram's case (supra) has neither received due attention nor, it has been properly understood so far. In my opinion, a person it who knows to read and write the local dialect, for example, Matwari in Marwar or other local dialect in vogue and used in village where they live, then also, he., would be eligible though lie may have no knowledge or ability to read and write Hindi. Hindi has been used in a wide sense in the Panchayat Act and it includes local dialects. To expect from a person who is able to read and write the local dialect, to read written statement drafted by an advocate in standard Hindi, would not be the proper test for deciding the qualification of section 13(1) of time Act. This is what has precisely happened in the instant case. 12. In view of the above interpretation of S 13(1) of the Act, I am convinced that the basic approach of the Election Tribunal is vitiated on account of misconception, misinterpretation and misunderstanding about the connotation "to read and write hindi" used in Section 13 of the Act. 13. Now coming to the precise controversy in the instant case, Shri Dhankhar has given a chart of what was Para 2 of the election petition which was put before Dhanna, the petitioner, for reading. It would be revealed that the petitioner could read the word, as vfnodkjh , properly and correctly. Similarly, he could read the word, as vfnodkjh but when he was asked to read the word, which is a word of high degree and standard of proficiency in Hindi he read it as, G . Again, he could read, F between he was asked to read the word, he read it as ds Dhanna could read,correctly. But, was read by him as, and a bare perusal of the paragraph which was put before him would show that it was Hindi of very high degree of proficiency which was not contemplated by Section 13(1) of the Act. Even then, it would be seen that he has read most of the words correctly and even the mistakes which he has made would only show the mistakes of pronunciation which could be committed even by a person who are having higher degree of proficiency in Hindi. Even then, it would be seen that he has read most of the words correctly and even the mistakes which he has made would only show the mistakes of pronunciation which could be committed even by a person who are having higher degree of proficiency in Hindi. Dhanna could read 'Mat' as 'Mat', 'Bat late' as' Batlate' and Nyaya' as Nyaya'. To illustrate, one of the sentences which was asked to read was, vr% mldh ;g ;kfpdk blh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA Except reading mldh as mldh and ^;kfpdk* as ;kfpdk ^blh* as ^bfr* he read the whole sentence correctly. 14. On a thorough and thoughtful comparison of the two paras which he was asked to read from the election petition. I am convinced that firstly, it was of very high standard of proficiency in hindi and should not have been put to him for testing bare literacy. Secondly, even while reading the above, by and large, except a few mistakes here and few there otherwise the petitioner has exhibited good basic knowledge of reading Hindi. It is impossible by any stretch of imagination to hold that he is a person who has not got bare knowledge of Hindi or he is not barely literate as per standard of Begaram's case (supra). The mistakes pointed out in that case in Maras 12, 13, and 14 are much more serious and vet this court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment of the Collector who, at that time, was functioning as election Tribunal under the law. 15. Now coming to the question of writing, it would be pertinent to note that Dhanna was given dictation of one sentence only in cross examination and he took the dictation as under : vklw flag 'ks[kkor dks uksfVl fn;k tkosA 16. In my opinion, if the local dialect is to be noticed then a mistake of single letter by Dhanna in one of the words for writing notice which he wrote as uwfVl and the word, fn;k as nhok shows hat he was exhibiting good knowledge of hindi as expressed and used in the villages The mistakes of grammer are even committed by highly literate persons and it would be too much to expect from a villager to write chaste hindi and ensure its correctness in composition and pronunciation. If that would have been the intention, the legislature would have kept the qualification as minimum. matriculation or intermediate or graduate in hindi. I am, therefore, convinced that the standard required by Section 13 (1) of the Act for ability of Hindi was fulfilled in the case of the present petitioner, Dhanna. The finding of the Election Tribunal is therefore, vitiated on account of wholly erroneous approach in understanding the meaning of section 13( 1) of the Act and then putting Dhanna to its test. 17. So far as the other grounds on which the election petition was filed and contested are concerned they were rightly rejected as not proved by the Electron Tribunal. Mr. Calla in his reply made a half hearted attempt to challenge those findings also, though his submission lacks courage of conviction, as he himself was not satisfied that they have been proved. Even then, I have examined them and I find that there is no good ground to interfere with these findings arrived at by the election Tribunal. 18. The result is, that the judgment of the election Tribunal is set aside. Dhanna who was duly elected as Sarpanch would be allowed to function as a Sarpanch. The election petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******