JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.:- This petition under Sections 80, 81 read with Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, has been filed by the petitioner praying for declaring the election of the respondent to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency, as void and to set aside the same. 2. Case of the petitioner as made out in the petition is that election to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were held on 26th February, 2003, as^ per the notification issued by the Election Commission. Various nomination papers were fried by the candidates including*the petitioner, who was set up1 by-the Bhartiya Janta Party, and the respondent, who was sponsored by the Indian National Congress, to contest elections from 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency, which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste. After scrutiny and withdrawal of nomination papers, seven candidates remained in the field. After polling and counting the result was declared on 1st March, 2003 and the respondent was declared elected. The respondent filed his nomination paper by making wrong declaration that he is-a member of Lohar caste which is a Scheduled Caste in the»State of-Himachal Pradesh and alongwith the nomination paper tie filed an attested copy, of the Scheduled-Caste certificate wrongly obtained from the Executive Magistrate, Indora, showing him to be a member of the Lohar caste. It is claimed that the respondent does not belong to Lohar caste but is a Tarkhan by caste which is not a scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, not being a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the respondent was not qualified to contest the election from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency and his nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer Therefore, the election is liable to be declared void and set aside. 3. The respondent contested the petition. In the written statement, he took the preliminary objections that complete and attested true copy of the petition had not been served upon him, that the copies of the documents on which the claim in the Election Petition is laid were not supplied to him, that there is in cause of action disclosed in the Election Petition and that no affidavit as required under Order 6 Rule 15 Sub-Rule (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed alongwith the Election Petition, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On merits, while not disputing the averments in the petition about filing of the nomination papers by the contestants and outcome of the election, the allegation that the respondent is not a Lohar by caste but a Tarkhan has been denied and it is claimed that the respondent was duly qualified to contest the election in the said Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Caste being a Lohar, a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. The petitioner filed replication wherein the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement have been denied and the claim as made out in the petition has been re-affirmed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether complete and attested true copy has not been served on the respondent, if so, its effect ? OPR 2. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of supply of copies of the documents filed by the petitioner with the petition ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of filing an affidavit, as alleged in preliminary objection No. 4 of the reply ? OPR 4v Whether the respondent is not a member of Lohar Caste (SC) and was not qualified on the date of his election to fill the seat in the Assembly from reserved Constituency for SC ?OPP 5. Whether nomination paper of respondent has wrongly and improperty been accepted ? OPP 6. Relief. 6. Out of the aforesaid issues, Issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 were treated and tried as preliminary issues and were held against the respondent vide order dated 26th September, 2003. 7. To prove the remaining issues, i.e. issues No. 4 and 5, on merits, the parties led evidence. Arguments were hear. 8. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under :-Issues No. 4 and 5 : 9. Since both these issues arise out of the dispute regarding caste of the respondent and are, thus, interconnected, therefore, are taken up together for decision. 10. Arguments were hear. 8. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under :-Issues No. 4 and 5 : 9. Since both these issues arise out of the dispute regarding caste of the respondent and are, thus, interconnected, therefore, are taken up together for decision. 10. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the cogent and reliable oral evidence, and documentary evidence carrying presumption of correctness, produced by the petitioner, it is proves that the respondent is Tarkhan by Caste and not a Lohar therefore, "arkhan not being a scheduled case in the State of Himachal Pradesh, he respondent was not qualified to contest the election from 35-Gangath Vidhan Sabha Constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste. Elaborating his contention, the learned Counsel submitted that Jagdish Raj (PW-7), Sat Pal (PW-8), Joginder Singh (PW-9), Mohan Lai (PW-10) are all residents of the village of the respondent and PW-7 is related to him and these witnesses have clearly and unambiguously stated that the respondent is Tarkhan by Caste. The petitioner (PW-11) has also so stated. There is no justifiable reason to disbelieve the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. 11. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the oral evidence of the aforesaid PWs is fully supported by documenter evidence consisting of the following. (i) the entry No. 1739 and entry after Sr. No. 1958 in the Admission and withdrawal Register Ext. PW-2/A produced by PW-1 and proved by PW-2; (ii) the admission form Ext. PW-3/A and consequential entries in the Admission and Withdrawal Register Ext. PW-3/B produced and proved by Indresh Bala (PW-3); (iii) the photocopy of birth entry Ext. PW-6/A (English Translation Ext. PW-6/B) and Certificate Ext. PW-6/C, produced by PW-5 and proved by PW-6; and (iv) the entries in the Patwar Registers Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/D produced and proved by PW-4 showing that initially caste of the family members of the respondent is mentioned in the relevant columns of Registers Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C as Tarkhan but has been substituted by "Lohar" without any order/direction of any competent authority. 12. It was further, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Exts. PW-2/A and PW-3/B are maintained by the Government officials in the discharge of their official duties and have been produced from proper custody therefore, these entries carry the presumption of correctness. Certificate Ext. 12. It was further, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Exts. PW-2/A and PW-3/B are maintained by the Government officials in the discharge of their official duties and have been produced from proper custody therefore, these entries carry the presumption of correctness. Certificate Ext. PW-6/C is based on entries in the pubic record Ext.PW-6/A and thus carries the presumption of correctness. The admission form PW-3/A which has been thumb-marked by the father of the respondent and contains the entry about their caste, being more than 30 years old documents also carries the presumption of truth. In all these documents Exts. PW-2/A, PW-3/A and PW-3/B, the caste of the respondent is shown as Tarkhan. Similarly Exts- PW-4/A to PW-4/C are public records maintained by Government officials in the discharge of their official functions. In these Registers initially the caste of the respondent is shown as Tarkhan, but thereafter he has been substituted by Lohar. The learned Counsel urged that in 1990 the respondent was elected Vice President of the concerned Gram Panchayat and got the entry Tarkhan into Lohar in collusion, with the Panchayat staff as there is no evidence at all even to suggest, much less to prove, that these changes in Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C had been made on any lawful basis in accordance with law. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, these changes in the entries have fraudulently been made and carried out in Exts. PW-4/D and C/1 to gain caste based benefits. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the evidence led by the respondent is inconsistent, vague and unreliable and thus incapable of rebutting the evidence led by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the respondent being a Tarkhan, which is not a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh, does not belong to a Scheduled Caste and was disqualified to contest the election under reference and his nomination was wrongly accepted. As a result, urged the learned Counsel, the election of the respondent deserves to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the oral evidence led by the petitioner consists of statements of interested and unreliable witnesses and is not reliable. As a result, urged the learned Counsel, the election of the respondent deserves to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the oral evidence led by the petitioner consists of statements of interested and unreliable witnesses and is not reliable. In view of the various admissions in the cross-examination of PW-2 to PW-6, no presumption of correctness is attached to the entries in the Pariwar registers except the latest entries in Ext. PW-4/D. There is no evidence to show that corrected entries in the Registers Exts. PW-4/A, to PW-4/C came into being by fraud, and were not-rectified as-per the true position. It was further contended that there are other corrected entries in Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C. The entries in Exts. PW-2/A, PW-3/A, PW-3/B, PW-6/A and PW-6/C are not proved to be properly maintained and connected with the respondent. According to the learned Counsel, the evidence, oral as well as documentary led by the respondent, fully rebut the evidence led by the petitioner and prove that the respondent is a Lohar by caste, which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that the passport ExtRW-9/A and copy of Caste Certificate Ext. PW-5/A issued by the competent authority as per the provisions contained in. Chapter 28 of the H.P. Land Record Manual duly corroborated by the corrected entries in Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C and entries in Ext. PW-4/D, clearly prove that the respondent belongs to Lohar Caste. The statements of RW-1 to RW-11-that the respondent is a Lohar by Caste, fully corroborate the documentary evidence. Furthermore even the evidence of-PW~12, a witness got examined-by the petitioner on Commission lends corroboration to the evidence of the respondent that he is Lohar by Caste. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that the petitioner and the respondent have earlier contested election from same Constituency but no one raised any objection about the Caste of the respondent. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers no objection about the Caste of the respondent was taken. Though, the petitioner admittedly came to know before polling about the alleged disqualification of the respondent but he did not take any steps to inform the appropriate authorities about the alleged disqualification. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers no objection about the Caste of the respondent was taken. Though, the petitioner admittedly came to know before polling about the alleged disqualification of the respondent but he did not take any steps to inform the appropriate authorities about the alleged disqualification. Therefore, urged the learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner has failed to prove these issues and the petition deserves dismissal with costs. 17. To prove that the respondent is not a Lohar which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in addition to his own statement as PW-11, the petitioner has relied on the statements of PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10. 18. PW-11 has stated that Caste of the respondent is Tarkhan, therefore, he does not belong to a Scheduled Caste and was thus not qualified to contest the election for the reserved seat. In view of his cross-examination, it is apparent that he does not know anything material about the family members of the respondent and their occupation. He claims that he knows the respondent for the last about 10 years. He admittedly came to know that the respondents does not belong to Scheduled Caste about 4 to 5 days before the polling from his workers but did not make any complaint in this regard because of short period. None for the workers, who might have informed the petitioner about the Caste of the respondent, has been named or examined. Once the petitioner had come to know that the respondent does not belong to a Scheduled Caste, in the ordinary course, he would have complained against the respondent to the appropriate election authorised which he never did. Though, his not making such complaint does not disentitle him from raising the issue in the petition yet it weakens his case. Since the petitioner had no personal knowledge about the caste of the respondent and the source, i.e. his workers, who informed him about the Caste of the respondent, have not been named and examined, therefore, his statements is of no help to him. 19. In their examination-in-chief, PW-7 to PW-10, who claim to be the residents of village Mohtli, have stated that the respondent is Tarkhan by Caste. However, no implicit reliance can be laid on their statements for the reasons stated hereafter. 20. 19. In their examination-in-chief, PW-7 to PW-10, who claim to be the residents of village Mohtli, have stated that the respondent is Tarkhan by Caste. However, no implicit reliance can be laid on their statements for the reasons stated hereafter. 20. PW-7 has stated that he is Tarkhan by Caste and the respondent, who is son of his Bua (fathers sister) is also Tarkhan. In his cross-examination, he has stated that mother of the respondent was not sister of his father but was sister of his cousin but could not state about his relation wit her in terms of the degree. He has admitted that his grandfather used to work as a blacksmith. At the same time, he admitted that a person who works as blacksmith is called a Lohar and one who works as a Carpenter is called Tarkhan. He has denied that Milkhi Ram, father of the respondent, and his brother Khajana Ram used to work as Blacksmiths. Admittedly, Milkhi Ram had died before he attained the age of understanding. His claim that Milkhi Ram was not working as a Lohar is based on the information secured by him from his ancestors. Hence, he has no personal knowledge about the occupation of Milkhi Ram. He admits Ext. R-1 forming part of passport of Khajana Ram Ext.PW-9/A to be the photograph of Khajana Ramand as per the contents of Ext. RW-9/A Khajana Ram is mentioned as Blacksmith by profession. He cannot be said to be an independent witness as his fafnily admittedly had litigation with the family of the respondent. 21. PW-8 has not been able to give enough details and particulars of the family of the respondent. According to him, Khajana Ram, uncle of the respondent, works as Raj, i.e. a mason whereas according to other PWs Khajana Ram works as a Carpenter. This contradiction is indicative of the fact that PWs are not actually aware of the occupation of Khajana Ram, his ancestors and other, members belonging to the family of the respondent who came to Mohtli from Pakistan after 1947. 22. PW-9 has stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware of the occupation of Gopi Chand grandfather of the respondent nor he is aware of the occupation of Milkhi Ram, father of the respondent. 22. PW-9 has stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware of the occupation of Gopi Chand grandfather of the respondent nor he is aware of the occupation of Milkhi Ram, father of the respondent. After his retirement from Government service, he was admittedly appointed as Secretary in the Kandi Project during the period of BJP Government and was removed from the office by the successor Congress Government after the respondent had been elected as MLA. However, the suggestion that he was removed at the instance of the respondent has been denied by him. Admittedly, his brother Mohinder Singh contested Panchayat election which he lost. He was admittedly not supported by the respondent. In this background, PW-9 cannot be said to be an independent witness. 23. PW-10 admittedly did not know the father of the respondent. He has not stated about the occupation of the family members of the. respondent. There is no foundation laid for his having the knowledge about the Caste of the respondent. 24. There are further reasons which render the statements of PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 unreliable. PW-7 to PW-10 have all stated that they never, informed the petitioner about the Caste of the respondent. It is specifically admitted by PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10 that they had stated about the Caste of the respondent for the first time in the Court and had not stated so before any one. If so, it remains a mystery as to how the petitioner came to know that these witnesses were aware that the respondent was a Tarkhan by Caste and they would depose so. It cannot be assumed that they were unaware that their Constituency was reserved for the Scheduled Caste and that the respondent was a candidate in the elections. It is not their case that they ever complained to any one that the respondent was contesting the elections on the basis of fictitious Caste. Their admissions that they did no: inform the petitioner about the Caste of the respondent and stated about his caste for the first time in the Court, thus, render their statements highly doubtful and unreliable. 25. Their admissions that they did no: inform the petitioner about the Caste of the respondent and stated about his caste for the first time in the Court, thus, render their statements highly doubtful and unreliable. 25. In Laxmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC 587, the Apex Court held as under :- "From the evidence of P.W.8 rt does not appear that any appeal was made to the voters on the ground of Caste or community in either of the two meetings. P.W. 6 and P.W22 wanted the Court to believe that though they had heard offending speeches being delivered at the meetings, they did not report the matter to anyone earlier but disclosed what they heard for the firs one in court. If the High Court found their testimony unbelievable, we do not think any exception can be taken to it. The High Court also found that neither P.W. 8 nor P.W.22 was a disinterested witness. P.W.8 being an active member of the Congress and P.W.22 was a polling agent of the appellant. At Neemgaon a meeting is alleged to have been held on February 19, 1974 at 12 noon in the Primary School premises. Of the two witnesses who speak about this meeting, P.W. 16 Lotan appears to have admitted on cross-examination that he had not attended the meeting and P.W. 15 Raghubir says, like PWs. 6 and 22, that what he heard in the meeting he was disclosing for the first time in Court. The High Court further finds that P.W. 15 was a man in the confidence of the appellant and P.W.I6 was admittedly a "man of Congress". If in these circumstances the High Court refused to reply on the evidence of these two witnesses, no interference is called for." (Emphasis supplied) 26. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the reasons, oral evidence of PW-7, PW-8. PW-9. PW-10 and PW-11 is not reliable, 27. The first piece of documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner is the Admission and Withdrawal Register Ext. PW-2/A and entry at Sr. No. 1739 dated 16.4.1962 and entry after Sr. No. 1958 therein are stated to be relating to the respondent. As per the particulars, prima facie these entries can be said to be identical to the particulars of the respondent about his parents and village. PW-2/A and entry at Sr. No. 1739 dated 16.4.1962 and entry after Sr. No. 1958 therein are stated to be relating to the respondent. As per the particulars, prima facie these entries can be said to be identical to the particulars of the respondent about his parents and village. As per the aforesaid entries, the Caste of the candidate named Both Raj son of Mlkhi Ram has been mentioned as Tarkhan. However, for various reasons as stated hereafter these entries cannot be relied upon. 28. PW-2 who has made the statement on the basis of the entries in Register Ext.PW-2/A is admittedly not the author of the entries therein and has specifically stated that she has made the statement about the admission etc. of the respondent on the basis of the perusal of the record (i.e. the Register Ext.PW-2/A) and has no personal knowledge about it. She is also not aware as to who had made these entries nor is in a position to state about the basis on which these entries have been made. The entries in the School register will have the probative value only when it is proved that these entries have been made on the basis of information given by a person capable of giving true information about its contents. 29. In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1796. the Apex Court held as under :- "14. We would not consider the evidence produced by the respondent on the question of age of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent examined Anatram Sharma PW-3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW-5. Anantram Sharma, PW-3 has been the Principal of New Government High Secondary School, Jodhpour since 1984. On the basis of the scholars register he stated before the High Court that Hukmi Chand joined School on 24.6.1974 in 9th Class and his date of birth as mentioned in Scholars register was 13.6.1956. He made this statement on the basis of the entries contained in the scholars register Ext. 8. He admitted that entries in the scholars are made on the basis of entries contained In the admission form. He could not produce the admission form in original or its copy. Held stated that Hukmi Chand was admitted in 9th class on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the Government Middle School, Palasni from where he had passed 8th standard. He could not produce the admission form in original or its copy. Held stated that Hukmi Chand was admitted in 9th class on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the Government Middle School, Palasni from where he had passed 8th standard. He proved the signature of Satya Narain Mathur the then Principal who had issued the copy of the scholars register Ex.8. Satya Narain Mathur was admittedly alive but he was not examined to show as to on what basis he had mentioned the date of birth of Hukmi Chand in Ex. 8. The evidence of Anantram Sharma merely proved that Ex. 8 was a copy of entries in scholars register. His testimony does not show as to on what basis the entry relating to date of birth of Hukmi Chand was made in the Scholars register. Kailash Chandra Taparia PW-5 was Deputy Director (Examination) Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, he produced the counter foil of Secondary Education Certificate of Hukmi Chand Bhandari, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 9. He also proved the tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination 1974, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 10. In both these documents Hukmi Chands date of birth was recorded as 13.6.1956. Kailash Chandra Taparia further proved Ext. 11 which is the copy of the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination of 1977 relating to Suraj Prakash Joshi. In that document the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi was recorded 11.3.1959. Kailash Chandra Taparia stated that date of birth as mentioned in the counter-foil of the certificates and in the tabulation form Ex. 12 was recorded on the basis of the date of birth mentioned by the candidate in the examination form. But the examination form or its copy was not produced before the Court. It substance the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses merely prove that in the scholars register as well as in the Secondary School examination records the date of birth of a certain Hukmi Chand was mentioned as 13.6.1956 and in the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination a certain Suraj Prakash Joshis date of birth was mentioned, as 11.3.1959. No evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that the aforesaid documents related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi who had filed nomination papers. No evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that the aforesaid documents related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi who had filed nomination papers. Neither the admission form nor the examination form on the basis of which the aforesaid entries relating to the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded was produced before the High Court. No doubt Exts. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are relevant and dimissibls but these documents have no evidentiary value for purpose of proof of date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi as the vital piece of evidence is missing, because no evidence was placed before the Court to show on whose information the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded in the aforesaid document. As already stated neither of the parents of the two candidates nor any other person having special knowledge about their date of birth was examined by the respondent to prove the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents. Parents or near relations having special knowledge are the best person to depose about the date of birth of a person. If entry regarding date of birth in the scholars register is made on the information given by parents or some one having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value. The testimony of Anantram Sharma and Kailash Chandra Taparia merely prove the documents but the contents of those documents were not proved. The date of birth mentioned in the scholars register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents of a person having special knowledge?, about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholars register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or-by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the documents Exs. Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted. 30. The above ratio equally applies to any entry about Caste in the school record i.e. Ext. PW-2/A. It is not traceable from the Register Et PW-2/A or the statement of PW-2 as to at whose instance or on what basis the contents of the relevant entries had been recorded. 31. The Register Ext. PW-2/A starts with Leaf No. 1 and ends with Leaf No. 51. It contains an unauthenticated endorsement that this Register contains 51 pages. In fact, the Register contests of 50 bound leaves instead of 51 pages and placed thereon are two half torn upper parts of leaves none of which contain page/lead number at many-places the sides/corners of the leaves are torn. It starts within serial No. 1 upto Serial No. 159, the last entry bearing the date 8.4.50. Immediately thereafter starts the entries from Sr. No. 1129 dated 2.4.55 onwards. The intervening serial numbers are nowhere on the bound Register. Entries against Sr. Nos. 581 to 592 are available on one of the half torn leaf loosely placed on the file but it cannot be found whether these entries are some of the entries found missing in the bound Register. 32. A perusal of this Register further shows that after lead No.23, it contains Leaf Nos. Entries against Sr. Nos. 581 to 592 are available on one of the half torn leaf loosely placed on the file but it cannot be found whether these entries are some of the entries found missing in the bound Register. 32. A perusal of this Register further shows that after lead No.23, it contains Leaf Nos. 31, 30, 32, 33, 24; 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34 to 49 and 51 in that order which renders it not possible to correlate the entries in various pages and also demonstrates hat the leaves of this Register had been tampered with. In both the entries relied for the petitioner, the Caste has been mentioned as Tarkhan and occupation as Mazoodri. It is not the case of either of the parties that father of the respondent ever worked as a labourer. For the reasons stated herein above, no implicit reliance can be laid on the entries in Ext. PW-27A. 33. The next set of documents relied by the petitioner consists of. the admission form/application Ext. PW-3/A and the consequential entries in the Admission and Withdrawal Register Ext. PW-3/B. Ext. PW-3/A alongwith Register Ext. PW-3/B has been produced by PW-3 who has stated that on the basis of Ext. PW-3/A, entry No. 478 had been made in the Register Ext. PW-3/A which is maintained official and concerns Bodh Raj son of Milkhi Ram of Mohtli, whose Caste as per the entries is Tarkhan (BC). In the cross-examination, she has stated that entries in Ext. PW-3/B are very old and not made by her nor she has personal knowledge about these entries and that Ext. PW-3/A was maintained in a guard file from where she had brought it for being produced in the Courts 34. Ext. PW-3/A- an application for admission in the school purports to be thumb-marked by Milkhi Ram, father of Bodh Raj, resident of Mohtli. This application and verification of the contents regarding age do not bear any date of the application and the verification. The Caste mentioned in Ext. PW-3/A is Tarkhan and occupation defendant "Dastkar". In the remarks column, figures which can be read as 478/22.4.1966 or 23.4.68 have been mentioned. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, these figures are 478/23.4.68 which refers to serial number and date of admission of the respondent to the school and it is with the help of these figures that Ext. In the remarks column, figures which can be read as 478/22.4.1966 or 23.4.68 have been mentioned. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, these figures are 478/23.4.68 which refers to serial number and date of admission of the respondent to the school and it is with the help of these figures that Ext. PW-3/A is stated to be the basis for entries in PW-3/B. 35. Register Ext. PW-3/B as per the undated certificate appended to it consists of 29 leaves (59 pages) and is of Mohtli Middle School regarding admissions in the school during the period 1962 to 1969. The Register is partially in torn condition and on some leaves including the relevant leaf some figures have been filled in the blank spaces which evidently are not meant to contain so filled-in-figures. Entry No. 778 at pages 40-41, concerns Bodh Raj son of Milkhi Ram, Caste Tarkhan (BC), occupation Mazdoor, village Mohtli. At the top date 11.9.67 has been mentioned and entry of the student Bodh Raj is the last at the bottom of this page. The entries on the next pages 42-43 start with the date 4.4.68 given at the top and in the lower part of these pages a few entries are under the date 11.4.1968. The entries at pages 44-45 are below the date 23.4.68. It may be pointed out that those portions of these pages where in the ordinary course date of admission ought to have been mentioned are no more in existence. What can be said on the basis of whatever entries remain in the relevant pages is that a student named Bodh Raj with aforesaid particulars was admitted to the Middle School Mohtli on or after 11.9.1967 but before 4.4.1968. If so, the alleged date of admission as given in Ext.PW-3/A whether it is read as 22.4:66 or as 23.4,68 does not coincide with the date of admission of said Bodh Raj. In the entries for the period on and after 4.4.68, particularly at pages 44-45 containing the date 23.4.68 no student named as Bodh Raj was admitted to the school. Even in the relevant column against entry No.478 occupation has been mentioned as Mazdqor i.e. labourer and not Oastkar1 as mentioned in Ext-PW-3/A. There is no explanation to reconcile the difference. 36. Even in the relevant column against entry No.478 occupation has been mentioned as Mazdqor i.e. labourer and not Oastkar1 as mentioned in Ext-PW-3/A. There is no explanation to reconcile the difference. 36. It may also be pointed out here that the blanks in the application Ext.PW-3/A and or the certificate/declaration at its back have been left unfilled and the contents which might be applicable/not applicable to the candidate are not tick-marked or struck off. It may also be noticed that there is verification/declaration contained in the form Ext.PW-3/A about correctness of age of the student as mentioned therein but no similar declaration is contained about Caste, occupation and residence. 37. As per the entries in ext.PW-2/A, Bodh Raj mentioned therein qualified 5th standard and left the school on 31.3.67. If he is same Bodh Raj to whom Ext.PW-3/A relates then there is no reason explained as to why he joined should join 6th standard on 23.4.68 after having passed the 5th standard in March, 1967. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent has admitted that he studied in Middle School Mohtli and it is his unchallenged evidence that he is under Middle, meaning thereby that he had not passed the middle standard i.e. 8th class examination. However, Bodh Raj as mentioned against entry No.478, vide relevant column is shown to have passed the 8th standard examination. 38. In view of the above, no implicit reliance can be laid on the entries in Exts.PW-3/A and PW-3/B, to hold that the respondent is a Tarkhan by Caste. 39. The next set of documents relied by the petitioner consists of copy of birth entry Ext. PW-6/A, English translation thereof Ext.PW-6/B and certificate Ext.PW-6/C. The register containing the original birth entry had been produced by PW-5 has stated that record is maintained in due discharge of official duty and it pertains to the CMO Office. PW-6 has stated that he could read and write Urdu in which the register is maintained and has further stated that copy of entries Ext.PW-6/A is true copy of the original entries and certificate Ext.PW-6/C is correct according to the original record. He has further stated that the entries under reference are regarding Bodh Raj son of Milkhi Ram R/O Village Mohtli. He has further stated that the entries under reference are regarding Bodh Raj son of Milkhi Ram R/O Village Mohtli. He has further stated that the entries appear to have been made at the instance of Gopalu Ram Chowkidar and this record was received in the CMO Office in the year 1976 from Police Station, Indora. Though in his examination-in chief he has stated that these entries are regarding Bodh Raj but in his cross-examination he has stated that in the original entries, the name is mentioned as Budhu Ram and profession, caste and religion have been mentioned as Ram Garhia Tarkhan Hindu. 40. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the register in question is maintained by Government officials in the discharge of their public functions, therefore, entries in the register, copy whereof is-: Ext.PW-6/A, has to be presumed to be true. To substantiate the contention, reliance was laid on Bishwanath Gosain v. Dulhin Lalmuni and others, AIR 1968 Patna 481 wherein Patna High Court held as under:- "The law on the point is well settled and does not need discussion in detail. However, since the point was raised I may refer to two recent Bench decision of this court in Bujhawan Singh v. ShyamaDevi, AIR 1964 Pat 301, where it has been held that the entries in birth and death registers are public documents and-are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary to prove who made the entries and what was the source of his information, and in Gopichand Arya v, Bedamo Kuer, "AIR 1966 Pat 231 laying down that death register is-a public document, presumption of correctness attaches to it and heavy onus lies on the party who wants to dispute the presumption. On the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses the presumption of correctness which is attached to the entries in Ext. H is not rebutted and the finding of the court below on this question has to be maintained." 41. There can be no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law. However, such presumption is not conclusive but is refutable. On the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses the presumption of correctness which is attached to the entries in Ext. H is not rebutted and the finding of the court below on this question has to be maintained." 41. There can be no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law. However, such presumption is not conclusive but is refutable. Before presumption of correctness/truth can be legally raised in regard to the entries in the record, it has to be shown that the entry is in the public record, the entry is regarding a fact in issue and that it had been made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. If there is any reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the entry and its being with respect to the fact in issue, or is otherwise rebutted by other evidence, the entry cannot be presumed to be correct. 42. It may be pointed out here that there is no dispute that Ext.PW-6/B is true and correct translation of Ext. PW-6/A which is in Urdu and the contents of Ext.PW-6/C which is also in urdu are confirmity with the contents of Ext. PV)/-6/B. since I cannot read and write Urdu, therefore, reference to the entries in/contents of Exts.PW-6/A,PW-6/B and PW-6/C will be on the basis of the contents of Ext.PW-6/B which is admittedly correct translation of Ext.PW-6/A. 43. As per the entries in the aforesaid exhibits, caste of Budhu Rams father, namely, Milkhi Ram has been mentioned as Tarkhan. On the face of it, the entry relates to Budhu Ram and not Bodh Raj. However, most of the other particulars contained in the entry tally with those of the respondent rendering the doubt, which the difference in the names create, negligible. But, the matter does not end here. 44. PW-5, who produced the register under reference, is CMO. According to him, this record (Register) peratians to CMO Office. However, in Ext.PW-6/B, it is clearly mentioned that it is a copy of entry No. 27 at page 376 of the Birth Register of Indora Police Station. PW-6 also states that this register was received in the CMOs Office in 1976. Ext PW-6/A does not contain any entry relating to the period after 16.5.1956. However, in Ext.PW-6/B, it is clearly mentioned that it is a copy of entry No. 27 at page 376 of the Birth Register of Indora Police Station. PW-6 also states that this register was received in the CMOs Office in 1976. Ext PW-6/A does not contain any entry relating to the period after 16.5.1956. It is, thus clear that this record was not maintained at the relevant time by the CMO Office and cannot be said to have been maintained by any employee of the said Office in the discharge of his official duty. None has been examined from the concerned Police Station or otherwise to prove that the original register on which Exts. PW-6/A and PW-6/C are based was ever maintained at Police Station, Indora by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. The period for which this register purports is given as 19 to 19 which does not make any sense. There is nothing on the record to clarify the confusion as to how the record purporting to have been authorised/prepared at the Police Station is maintained by CMO Office in the discharge of official duties and to which period the register in fact pertains. 45. The original entries appear to have been made on information given by Gopalu Ram Chowkidar. RW-11 is the son of Gopalu Ram Chowkidar and belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He has stated that Malkhi Ram (father of the respondent) was a Lohar by occupation as well as by Caste. He has thus contradicted the contents of Ext. PW-6/B about the Caste. If the father of this witness had the information that Malkhi Ram was a Tarkhan, then evidently there is no reason for PW-11, who had been assisting his father in the discharge of his duties, to come forward to controvert the information given by his father unless he is satisfied about the Caste of the respondent. 46. The last set of documentary evidence led by the petitioner consists of the Pariwar Registers Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C, PW-4/D and C/1 produced by PW-4. 47. PW-4 has stated that Ext. PW-4/A is for the year 1976 and it contains the Pariwar entry of Bodh Raj son of Malkhi Ram resident of Village Mohtli against House No. 189 at Sr. No. 1178 at page No. 80. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C, PW-4/D and C/1 produced by PW-4. 47. PW-4 has stated that Ext. PW-4/A is for the year 1976 and it contains the Pariwar entry of Bodh Raj son of Malkhi Ram resident of Village Mohtli against House No. 189 at Sr. No. 1178 at page No. 80. He has further stated that initial visible entry in the column of Caste, is which has been scored off and replaced by Caste Lohar. Ext. PW-4/A does not contain any other entry of Bodh Raj son of Malkhi Ram of village Mohtli. So is the state of entry regarding caste of Bodh Raj son of Malkhi Ram in Ext. PW-4/B for the year 1977 except that the Scheduled Caste entry is initialed. Similar is the state of entry of caste in Ext.PW-4/C for the year 1982-89. PW-4 has further deposed that Ext. PW-4/D is for the period 1990 till date in which Caste of Bodh Raj son of Malkhi Ram at Page-78 against Sr. No. 200 is mentioned as Lohar. He goes on to state that apart from the aforesaid registers viz. Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C and PW-4/D no other Pariwar Register is maintained by the Panchayat. In his cross-examination he has stated that entries in Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B and PW-4/C are not in his hand and he is not aware as to who had made those entries. He is not in a position to state that the substituted entries are by way of correction made immediately after detection that the initial entries were wrongly made. He has contradicted himself by admitting that apart from the aforesaid four registers, Ext. C/1 is also the Pariwar Register for the year 1990 onward. He has further admitted cuttings etc. in various relevant columns of the Registers Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C, PW-4/D and C/1. 48. The Registers Exts. PW-4/A PW^/B, PW-4/C, PW-4/D and C/1 are maintained by the concerned Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, hence, can be said public record. It is true that presumption of correctness is attached to the entries in the public record as was contended for the petitioner and supported by various judgments cited in this regard. However, such presumption is attached to the latest entries which are in Register Ext. PW-4/D showing the caste of the respondent as Lohar. In any case, such presumption is not conclusive but is rebuttable. 49. However, such presumption is attached to the latest entries which are in Register Ext. PW-4/D showing the caste of the respondent as Lohar. In any case, such presumption is not conclusive but is rebuttable. 49. A perusal of the entries in Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C clearly reveals that initial entries about the caste of the family members of Bodh Raj are Tarkhan which have been substituted by Lohar. In this regard the contention for the petitioner is that the respondent was elected vice President of the concerned Panchayat in 1990 and in collusion with the Panchayat staff he fabricated the substituted the entries by scoring off the original correct entries showing him belonging to Caste Tarkhan. 50. Prima facie, the contention for the petitioner seems to be sound but in depth examination of the matter renders it untenable. The contention evidently amounts to the allegation that the substituted entries in Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C are forged and fabricated and those in Ext. PW-4/D are based on so forged and fabricated entries. If so, it was a matter to be pleaded in the petition and proved by evidence, ft is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that substituted entries were made or got made by the respondent fraudulently and by misuse of his office as vice-President of the Panchayat. No evidence in this regard has been led. Even the petitioner in his statement does not state so nor it is so stated by PW-4 or any other witness. It cannot, therefore, be said that the substituted entries have come into being because of the alleged collusion pr misuse of his office by the respondent. 51. In the Register Ext.PW-4/A for the year 1976, against entries No. 1175 to 78, showing only 4 members including Bodh Raj in the family headed by Yashpal, columns in respect to the occupation and literacy of the family members are left blank. Admittedly and evidently the columns of Caste qua entries against House Nos.73,74,75 and 186 have been left blank. Entries against House Nos.167 & 960 contain cuttings in the Caste column. Entries against house Nos.169 & 174 also contain cuttings and the Castes originally mentioned have been substituted by different Castes. The Register evidently contains two states of Sr. Nos. 1560 to 1565 firstly at leaf No.90 and then at leaf Nos.91 and 92 describing different Castes. Entries against House Nos.167 & 960 contain cuttings in the Caste column. Entries against house Nos.169 & 174 also contain cuttings and the Castes originally mentioned have been substituted by different Castes. The Register evidently contains two states of Sr. Nos. 1560 to 1565 firstly at leaf No.90 and then at leaf Nos.91 and 92 describing different Castes. The register evidently contains two sets of Sr. Nos. 1560 to 1565 firstly at leaf No.90 and then at leaf Nos. 91 and 92 describing different persons and families. 52. In the Register Ext.PW4/A for the year 1977, entry against House No.179/1 shows Bodh Raj as member of the family headed by Sat Pal consisting of seven members inctading Yashpal but omitting Prem Lata and-Guddi, respectively, wife and daughter of yashpal as mentioned in the entry in Ext.PW-4/A. The entry includes a few new names including Satpal which do not find mention in the entry in Ext.PW-4/A. The respective ages of "Yashpal and Bodh Raj as per entries in the Register Ext.PW-4/B for 1977 are recorded as 26 and 21 years whereas in the register for 1977. In Ext. PW-4/B there is no entry in the columns of occupation, literacy and addition and deletion of the name(s) of members of the family though in the column of names of family members there is evidently addition and deletion of such members when compared with the entry in Ext.PW-4/A. In Ext. PW-4/B also there are cuttings etc. in the material columns of various entries. Entries against House Nos. 19, 15, 3/1, 167, 68, 225 and 226" contain cuttings and substitution in the column of Caste. Serial numbers of the entries in this Register are not given. 53. In the Register Ext. PW-4/C for the period 1982 to 1989, the relevant entry is at page No. 64. Vide this entry family of Satpal consists often members including bodh Raj. This entry again includes Prem lata wife Yashpal though not mentioned in the intervening Register Ext. PW-4/B. It also mentions Sunil Kumar son of Satpal, though in Register Ext. PW-4/B name of son of Satpal is mentioned as Susheel Kumar. Age of Ram Lai given as 24 years in the 1976 Register Ext. PW-4/A is mentioned as 25 years in this Register started in 1982. Both Raj shown 26 years of age vide Ext. PW-4/B. It also mentions Sunil Kumar son of Satpal, though in Register Ext. PW-4/B name of son of Satpal is mentioned as Susheel Kumar. Age of Ram Lai given as 24 years in the 1976 Register Ext. PW-4/A is mentioned as 25 years in this Register started in 1982. Both Raj shown 26 years of age vide Ext. PW-4/A in 1976 is shown 26 years of age in 1982 vide Ext. PW-4/C. Similarly, Satpal aged 32 years in 1977 vide Ext. PW-4/B is shown aged 33 years in 1982 vide Ext. PW-4/C. The occupation of the family has been mentioned in Ext. PW-4/C. The occupation of the family has been mentioned in Ext. PW-4/C (for the first time) as Mistri and it has also been mentioned as to which member of the family is literate and which one is illiterate. How and from where these particulars in the entries appearing for the first time have been procured, is not known nor explained. The entries about Caste against House No. 174, 175, 176, 180, 181, 210 and 217 have been admittedly substituted. 54. The latest entries produced are contained in Register Ext. PW-4/D for the period 1990 1990 onwards. As per these entries Bodh Raj is shown Lohar by Caste having occupation of Shop-Mazdoori. 55. In view of the above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the manner in which the aforesaid Panchayat registers are maintained deprive the entries therein of any probative value and no implicate reliance can be laid thereon. 56. It may be pointed out that a number of judgments, including the one already referred to, where cited at the bar for the petitioner to substantiate the submission (i) that Caste cannot be changed, therefore, substitution of Caste Tarkhan by Lohar as in Ext. PW-4/A to Ext. PW-4/C was not permissible; and (ii) the entries in the public records and in the documents which are 30 years old as Ext. PW-4/A is, carrying the presumption of truth. All the cited judgments need not be set out herein because there cannot be any dispute regarding the legal position about the probative value of entries in the public records and the documents purporting and proved to be 30 years old. However, as already stated, such presumption is not conclusive. PW-4/A is, carrying the presumption of truth. All the cited judgments need not be set out herein because there cannot be any dispute regarding the legal position about the probative value of entries in the public records and the documents purporting and proved to be 30 years old. However, as already stated, such presumption is not conclusive. In view of the detailed discussion herein above about the manner of maintenance of the aforesaid documents relied by the petitioner nor implicated reliance can be laid thereon to hold that the respondent is a Tarkhan by Caste, more so, in the absence of support by any cogent and reliable oral evidence and in view of the evidence in rebuttal. 57. The rebuttal evidence of the respondent, besides his own statement as RW-5, consists of the statements of Yashpal (RW-1), Rakesh Kumar (RW-2), Sat Pal (RW-3), Tilak Raj (RW-4), Mulk Raj (RW-6), Ram Singh (RW-7), Bus Dutta (RW-8), Khajana Ram (RW-9), Bhagat Ram (RW-10) and Maghar Singh (RW-11). 58. The respondent has stated that he belongs to Lohar caste which is a Scheduled Caste. He produced his caste certificate and stated that a true copy thereof is Ext. RW-5/A. His parents had died in his childhood and he does not recollect anything about them and his. educational qualification in under-middle. He has further stated that in 1998 he contested the assembly elections from Gangath assembly Constituency which is reserve for Scheduled Caste since long and was so reserved even in 1998. In the said election he lost to the petitioner by a small margin. He has further stated that the petitioner did not object to his nomination in this or the last election in 1998 as a Scheduled Caste candidate and the Caste Certificate issued to him by the Tehsildar has never been challenged. In his cross-examination he has admitted to have studied in Government Primary and Middle School Mohtli. He has further admitted that in 1990 he was elected Vice President of Gram Panchayat Mohtli but denied that after his election as such he scored off the Caste Tarkhan of his family as mentioned in the Panchayat records and substituted it with Caste "Lohar". He has admitted the various substitutions in the column of the Caste in Ext. PW-4/A, Ext. PW-4/B, Ext. PW-4/C and Ext. He has admitted the various substitutions in the column of the Caste in Ext. PW-4/A, Ext. PW-4/B, Ext. PW-4/C and Ext. PW-4/D concerning his family but denied the suggestion that after getting Caste Certificate he got these entries changed to get the benefits available to the scheduled caste. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper the petitioner or his agents were not present. He has further denied the suggestion that his Caste Certificate had not been issued by the Tehsildar and is forged and fake and that he is Tarkhan by Caste. 59. It may be pointed out that the effect of admissions of the respondent that he studied in Government Primary and Middle School, Mohtli and that he was elected Vice President of the Panchayat on the probative value of the school and Panchayat records has already been taken note of in the relevant paras heretofore. His statement that Gangath Vidhan Sabha Constituency is reserved for Schedule Caste since long and was so reserved in 1998 when the parties to this petition had contested the election, is nowhere under challenge. It is also not in dispute that nomination of the respondent as a Scheduled Caste candidate in 1998 or present election was not called in question at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers or subsequently by the petitioner or his agents except by way of this petition arising out of the second election. Further, there is no evidence that any voter of the Constituency which apparently includes the villager where the respondent was born, brought-up and educated, ever came forward with the allegation that the respondent was contesting the election(s) without being qualified to do so because he does not belong to a Scheduled Caste. This circumstance by itself lends strong assurance and support to the claim of the respondent that he is a Lohar and thus belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 60. Ext. PW-4/A is the copy of the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to the respondent which shows his caste as Lohar which is a Scheduled Caste in Himachal Pradesh. The correctness of this Certificate was assailed on the ground that it is based on no material as the columns of dates in the form relating to such material are blank and that this certificate is not issued by the competent authority. 61. The correctness of this Certificate was assailed on the ground that it is based on no material as the columns of dates in the form relating to such material are blank and that this certificate is not issued by the competent authority. 61. The procedure for issue of Caste Certificate has been provided in Chapter 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. It is provided therein that Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (C) are the competent authorities to issues Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class and Bona fide Himanchali certificates within their respective jurisdictions. The applicants, who wants the Scheduled-Caste Certificate, will apply to the concerned Officer in Form-A and such application will be registered. In case the applicant is a tenure-holder report of Patwari and if not a tenure-holder report from Gram Panchayat/M.C./N.C. as the case may be, will be called for by the authority receiving the application and after satisfying himself, such authority will issue the Certificate to the applicant. The issuing authority will keep one copy of Certificate on its record which will be consigned to the record-room for future use. The Officer/Officials who may furnish incorrect/fake information/report or issues a wrong Certificate shall be liable for disciplinary action under the Conduct Rules and in case the wrong information is given by the applicant, his prosecution will be initiated by the issuing authority. 62. It is evident from the above procedural and penal provisions that these are of deterrent nature qua giving of wrong information and issuing of a fake Certificate by the public officials and also about giving of wrong/fake information by the applicant. The issue of Certificate, as per the above procedure, is evidently by a public servant in the discharge of official duties and that too after due satisfaction. The presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, therefore, will be that in issuing the Caste Certificate, the official acts have been regularly performed and the records maintained in this regard by the authority competent to issue the Certificate thus is public record within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the Caste Certificate will carry the presumption of being genuine in view of the provisions of Section 79 of the Evidence Act and such presumption is obligatory. Therefore, the Caste Certificate will carry the presumption of being genuine in view of the provisions of Section 79 of the Evidence Act and such presumption is obligatory. The legal position, thus, is that a Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority will hold good unless cancelled or declared invalid in due process of law. (Se Mangat Rai v. State of Punjab, 1997(7) SCC 507. 63. A perusal of Ext. PW-5/A reveals that it has been issued from the Office of Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Indora. These two offices all over the State of Himachal Pradesh are tolled into one that is all the Tehsidlars are vested with the powers of an Executive Magistrate. Simply because under the signatures of the issuing authority "Karyakari Dandadhikari" i.e. Executive Magistrate- has been mentioned will, thus not mean that this Certificate is not issued by the Tehsildar which is the basic office held by the issuing authority-though in addition is an Executive Magistrate also. It cannot, therefore, be held-that the Caste Certificate, copy whereof is Ext. PW-5/A, has not been issued by the competent authority. 64. As per Form-B appended to the aforesaid procedure or the procedure in Chapter 28 of the Manual, it is not required that the Certificate should mention the material relied to issue it. Therefore, not mentioning the dates of reports received by the issuing authority in the Certificate is inconsequential. Thus, Ext. PA/-5/A supports the version of RW-5 that he is a Lohar by Caste. 65. RW-1 is the brother of the respondent. He has stated that they are Lohar by occupation. Neither he has been examined nor has he stated about their caste. Though till Mohabharta-age Caste followed the occupation but with the passage of time acquisition of Caste became birth-based. The occupation was rendered a fact for inference about Caste. Therefore, statement of RW-1 is of not much support to the claim of the respondent except for the inference about caste from the occupation. 66. RW-9 and the respondent admittedly had a common ancestor and the former is the first cousin of Malkhi Ram, father of the latter. Therefore, RW-9 is in a position to state about the Caste of the respondent. He has stated that they are Lohar by Caste as well as by occupation. 66. RW-9 and the respondent admittedly had a common ancestor and the former is the first cousin of Malkhi Ram, father of the latter. Therefore, RW-9 is in a position to state about the Caste of the respondent. He has stated that they are Lohar by Caste as well as by occupation. He has produced passport Ext.RW-9/A which he had obtained in mid-fifties to enable him to visit Pakistan from where his family had earlier migrated to India. He has stated that the respondent was never called as Budhu Ram (as is the name in birth entry Ext. PW-6/A and Certificate Ext. PW-6/C already dealt with). He has denied the suggestion that they are not Lohars but Tarkhans. He has stated in his cross-examination that their Caste is Kalsi". It is not the case of either of the parties that in fact there is a Case known as Kalsi nor any explanation in this regard was elicited from this witness either by further cross-examination or re-examination. Some assurance, though not full assurance, to his statement about his Caste is found from the contents of passport Ext. PW-9/A wherein his occupation is mentioned as "Blacksmith". This entry exists in a. document which came into being when admittedly the Caste Lohar1 was not a Scheduled Caste within territorial jurisdiction of then Punjab w herein this witness and his family and ancestors of the respondent were then residing. Had they been working as Ministry or Tarkhans, as is the case of the petitioner there is no reason for wrongly recording the occupation of RW-9 as Blacksmith atthe time when it could not be comprehended that such entry will prove advantageous to the witness and his family at any later stage. 67. RW-2 claims to have retired as an honorary Lieutenant from the Army in 1994 and presently working as a Lecturer in the Educational Department, which is not disputed. He has stated that his grandmother and grandfather of the respondent are real sister and brother and that he is a Lohar by Caste and so is the respondent. He produced his Caste Certificate, copy whereof is Ext. RW-2/A. The admission of Ext. RW-2/A was objected to on the ground of mode of proof. The objection is not sustainable because the witness has produced the original Certificate and then stated that Ext. RW-2/A is true copy of the original in his possession. In Ext. He produced his Caste Certificate, copy whereof is Ext. RW-2/A. The admission of Ext. RW-2/A was objected to on the ground of mode of proof. The objection is not sustainable because the witness has produced the original Certificate and then stated that Ext. RW-2/A is true copy of the original in his possession. In Ext. RW-2/A Caste of RW-2 is certified as Lohar. Thus, Ext. PW-2/A being the true copy of the original certificate issued by the competent authority lends full assurance to the statement of this witness that he is Lohar by Caste and so is the respondent. The evidence of this witness was sought to be discredited oh the ground that he had not produced the Army discharge certificate which is more authentic a document. The witness has stated that his entry in Army service was not on reservation basis and the discharge certificate does not contain entry about caste. There is no reason to disbelieve his version in this regard. His relation with the respondent and his evidence that the respondent is also Lohar by Caste lends further support and credence to the statement of RW-5. There is no reason shown which could lead this witness to make a false statement about the Caste of the respondent. 68. RW-3 claims to be related to the respondent in the same manner as RW-2 and has stated that he is Lohar by Caste and so is the respondent. He has also produced his Caste Certificate, copy whereof is Ext. RW-3/A, which certifies his caste as Lohar. This Certificate had been issued in 1980 and the suggestion that it is a forged document has been denied by the witness. The evidentiary value of the statement of this witness read with Ext. RW-3/A is at par with that of RW-3. 69. RW-4, RW-6, RW-7, RW-8, RW-10, who are residents of village Mohtli and, thus, co-villagers of the respondent and RW-11 have stated that the respondent is a Lohar by Caste. There is nothing in the cross-examination of RW-4, RW-7 and RW-8 which may dislodged their evidence their evidence about the Caste of the respondent or which may suggest that they are interested or procured witnesses. RW-6 had been the President of the Panchayat of which the respondent- was the Up-Pradhan and both of them admittedly belting to the Congress Party, therefore, he cannot be said an absolutely independent witness. RW-6 had been the President of the Panchayat of which the respondent- was the Up-Pradhan and both of them admittedly belting to the Congress Party, therefore, he cannot be said an absolutely independent witness. In his cross-examination, RW-10 states that he does not known that the family members of the respondent though work as Lohar but are Tarkhan by Caste. This statement evidently reveals that RW-10 is not sure that the respondent and his family members are Lohar by Caste but it is implicit in the reply that the suggestion given to the witness by necessary implications concede that the occupation of the respondent and his family members is that of Lohar. The inference deductible supports he cause of the respondents The statement of,RW-11 that the respondent is a Lohar by Caste, is admittedly based on the fact that the respondent and-his family members work as Lohar, therefore, he believes that they are Lohar by Caste. 70. In view of the above discussion, the oral evidence led by the respondent about his Caste is more cogent and trustworthy than that of the petitioner and finds support from the Caste is more cogent and trustworthy than that of the petitioner and finds support from the Caste Certificate Ext. PW-5/A of the respondent. 71. What makes the evidence of the respondent still more reliable and acceptable is the circumstances that he had contested two elections from the Gangath Constituency but no voter, opponent or the petitioner opposed the claim of the respondent that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste and none complained to the concerned authorities that the respondent had contested the elections twice as a Scheduled Caste candidate which he was not except the petitioner by way of this petition filed after he lost the elections. The circumstance leads to the only conclusion that the population of the Constituency including voters, contestants, their supporters and even villagers of Mohtli where the respondent was born, brought up and educated, believe that the respondent is a Lohar by Caste. Such belief cannot be said to be unfounded. 72. There is another piece of evidence which lends further support to the evidence of the respondent. One Kamal Sharma (PW-12), incharge of Gadi "Pandit Rattan Lai Kahsni Ramji, Hardiwar" had been examined as a witness of the petitioner on Commission. Such belief cannot be said to be unfounded. 72. There is another piece of evidence which lends further support to the evidence of the respondent. One Kamal Sharma (PW-12), incharge of Gadi "Pandit Rattan Lai Kahsni Ramji, Hardiwar" had been examined as a witness of the petitioner on Commission. He has stated that has is Ganga Guru and Kulpurohit of the petitioner and the respondent and his ancestors and he had been maintaining the records of the parties for the last 300 years and the family record of Both Raj son of Malkhi Ram of village Mohtli is available with him. As per the record for the year 1890 BK, Caste of the ancestors of the respondent is recorded as Lohar Trikhan Kalsi. In the record fro 1989 BK, their Caste is mentioned as Lohar Kalsi. However, subsequently in the years 2014 BK and 1966 AD the Caste mentioned is Kalsi and now these entries are made as per the version of the Yajman who visits the place but the Caste is mentioned as per the old record. He has further stated that as per the records for the year 2014 Malkhi Ram, visited Haridwar with the remains of his mother Bhaji who was daughter of Lohars of Dadera (Lohar Dadera walon ki ladki thi. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-12. In the older entries for the year 1890 the ancestors of the respondent are mentioned as Lahor Trikhan Kalsi and in the year 1989 they are mentioned as Lohar Kalsi. Though at a later stage their caste is mentioned as Kalsi but change of a Caste is impermissible and the constantly mentioned Caste Lohar could not be deleted or altogether changed into any other Caste. What confirms that the Caste Lohar was correctly mentioned in the said record is the fact that grandmother of the respondent was daughter of a Lohar as stated by PW-12. This entry relates to the year 2014 BK and is made after the death of grandmother of the. respondent. She must have been married much before 2014 BK when the Caste system and the Caste based barriers were too rigid and inter-caste marriage was socially impermissible. This entry relates to the year 2014 BK and is made after the death of grandmother of the. respondent. She must have been married much before 2014 BK when the Caste system and the Caste based barriers were too rigid and inter-caste marriage was socially impermissible. The marriage of the grandfather of the respondent with the daughter of a Lohar family is suggestive of the fact that the grandfather of the respondent was a Lohar, which conclusion cannot be said in total conflict with the older entries in the records of the Gaddi. 73. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the evidence led by the respondent is more reliable than that of the petitioner and fully rebuts the otherwise unreliable evidence of the petitioner. As a result, it is held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent does not belong to a Scheduled Caste (Lohar) and was not qualified to contest the election to the seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste. It follows that it is not proved that the nomination papers of the respondent were wrongly and improperly accepted. Both these issues viz. Issues No. 4 and 5 are accordingly decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 6 Relief: 74. In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 4 and 5 above, this petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. The material relied by the petitioner could prima facie lead him to bona fide believe that he has a reasonable cause of action to institute this petition. Therefore, despite dismissal of the petition I am not inclined to award costs against the petitioner and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 75. The Registrar General shall intimate the substance of the decision herein above taken to the Election Commission of India and the Speaker of the Himachal Vidhan Sabha and shall also send authenticated copy of this judgment to the Election Commission of India in accordance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 forthwith. -