JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Attau Rahman Masoodi, JJ. – The present petition has been filed by a voter of Village Panchayat, Madhukarpur, Block Deeh, District Raebareli, for a writ of quo-warranto to be issued against the 5th respondent, who according to the petitioner, has usurped the public office of Village Pradhan of the above mentioned village Panchayat in spite of the fact that she was totally disqualified from contesting the said election having not completed the age of 21 years as per Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1947. The petitioner also states he is a fair price shop licensee of the Village Panchayat. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the age of the respondent no. 5 as reflected in the voter's list as 24 years and also in the details of the candidate uploaded on the website is wrong and her declaration about age before the returning officer at the time of filing of her nomination is also false. 3. To substantiate this allegation, the petitioner has relied on the entry of the date of birth of the respondent no. 5 in her class X High School Certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh as per the Regulations framed under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921. According to the petitioner, the High School Certificate clearly records 5th of July 1997 as the date of birth of the respondent no. 5 and accordingly she completes approximately 18 and a half years of age as on the date of filing of the nomination and contesting the elections which were held on 7th of December 2015. 4. The second evidence relied on by the petitioner is about the date of birth of the respondent no. 5 as recorded in the Adhar Card obtained by her which is 3rd of February, 1997. 5. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid dates of birth leaves no room for doubt that the respondent no. 5 was absolutely disqualified and ineligible to even contest the election of the Village Pradhan. Yet the election authorities in spite of the objections filed by the petitioner have cleared her nomination papers on the strength of the voter's list as also a manipulated copy of the family register extract that records her incorrect age. A false declaration was made before the returning officer on Affidavit by the respondent no. Yet the election authorities in spite of the objections filed by the petitioner have cleared her nomination papers on the strength of the voter's list as also a manipulated copy of the family register extract that records her incorrect age. A false declaration was made before the returning officer on Affidavit by the respondent no. 5 and hence she having usurped the office, the same deserves to be declared vacant on account of the aforesaid disqualification of the 5th respondent. 6. The Constitutional mandate with regard to the age of a member of a Village Panchayat is governed by Article 243-F of the Constitution of India which reads as follows : - "243-F Dis-Qualification For Membership; (1) A person shall be dis-qualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of panchayat. (a) If he is so dis-qualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purpose of election to the legislature of the State concerned; Provided that no person shall be dis-qualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age, if he has attained the age of 21 years. (b) .................... (2) ................... " 7. The same provision for a village Pradhan is contained in Section 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 which is extracted hereinunder : - "Disqualifications of Members of Gram Panchayat And Electoral Rolls, Etc. 5-A. Disqualification for membership- A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being [ the Pradhan or] a member of a Gram Panchayat, if he- (a) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the State Legislature: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years; (b) is a salaried servant of the Gram Panchayat or a Nyaya Panchayat; (c) holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central Government or a [local authority, other than a Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat; or a Board, Body or Corporation owned or controlled by a State Government or the Central Government];" 8. Consequently, if a candidate is lacking in qualification according to the age prescribed, then such a candidate cannot be elected to the office of Village Pradhan. 9. Consequently, if a candidate is lacking in qualification according to the age prescribed, then such a candidate cannot be elected to the office of Village Pradhan. 9. The petitioner has also alleged mala fides against the father of the respondent no. 5 - Mr. Vikranth Prasad, who is the ex-Pradhan of the village. It is alleged that in order to perpetuate his continuity in the village that he has set up his daughter, who is not qualified, to hold the office of Pradhan. 10. On the issue as to whether such a requirement can be pressed into service at the time of nomination for determining the age of a candidate, we had called upon the learned counsel for the Election Commission to inform us about the process of nomination and the form that is to be filled up together with the Affidavit requiring declaration of age. The learned counsel for the Election Commission has produced a copy of the general directions issued to the returning officers for the 2015 Panchayat Raj Elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under Chapter V of the said directives issued by the Election Commission, Clause 9 prescribes the filling up of the nomination form on the strength of the voters list of the village and the extract of the voters list has to be filed along with the nomination form. In respect to reservation, a Caste Certificate has also to accompany the same compulsorily and the third requirement is a declaration/affidavit to be submitted in terms of the Circular of the Election Commission dated 21st of June, 2003. In the event of any objection, the returning officer has to satisfy himself on the basis of the evidence produced before him for the purpose of clearing the nomination. The form prescribed for nomination for the office of Village Pradhan is Form no. 2 to the said directive as per Rule 69 (1). The same at item no. 3 requires disclosure of age. 11. A perusal of the aforesaid directives and the form does not indicate the date of birth to be taken into account as recorded in a High School certificate at the time of filing of nomination. There are only two requirements namely the extract of the voters list and the Affidavit/declaration of the candidate for the purpose of age. 12. 11. A perusal of the aforesaid directives and the form does not indicate the date of birth to be taken into account as recorded in a High School certificate at the time of filing of nomination. There are only two requirements namely the extract of the voters list and the Affidavit/declaration of the candidate for the purpose of age. 12. In our opinion, the issuance of a High School certificate by the Board of High School Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh is a statutory act and is an official document having been issued under the Regulations framed under the U.P Intermediate Education Act 1921. Thus, the same is an official document which has a probative and presumptive value for the purpose of age. 13. The question is as to whether in such matters of election, the prescription of age has to be determined on the strength of such a document or any other material can be taken into account. 14. The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 do not prescribe any particular mode or evidence for acceptance of the age on the basis of date of birth of a candidate as recorded in a School register or a High School Certificate. However, in view of the statutory status of a High School certificate recording the date of birth of a candidate cannot be ignored. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner himself has indicated that the respondent no. 5 had taken shelter of the age disclosed in her voter list as also the age prescribed in the Family Register extract which is also a statutorily prescribed document under Family Register (Birth and Death) Rules. 16. Thus, there are competing sets of evidence including the High School Certificate and the Adhar Card on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner as well as the evidence relied on by the respondent no. 5 indicated above. 17. The question as to whether a writ of quo warranto can lie where there is an admitted disqualification is no longer res-integra keeping in view the ratio of decision in the case of Election Commission of India through its Secretary v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2000 SC 2979 . 5 indicated above. 17. The question as to whether a writ of quo warranto can lie where there is an admitted disqualification is no longer res-integra keeping in view the ratio of decision in the case of Election Commission of India through its Secretary v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2000 SC 2979 . However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Upadyay v. State of U.P and Others, Writ-C No. 22769 of 2011, decided on 2.5.2011, held that whenever there is such a dispute relating to the age of a candidate, an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is the appropriate remedy. The Division Bench relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Meena Devi v. State of U.P and Others, 2010 (111) RD page 467, and the case of Dhanai v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (109) RD page 432, to analyse the position and hold accordingly. Another judgment of a Division Bench in the case ofKhem Singh Pachara v. State of U.P and others, Writ Petition No. 4567 of 2011, decided on 21.4.2011, was relied on to come to the conclusion that a writ of quo-warranto is not entertained normally as such a challenge can be raised under Section 12 C of 1947 through an election petition. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench further found that an election petition had already been filed challenging the election of the returned candidate where-after a writ of quo-warranto was prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained. 18. From a perusal of the said judgment it is clear that a writ petition of quo-warranto can be maintained and in our opinion when the evidence is unimpeachable or un-contestable such a relief can be entertained under Act 226 of the Constitution. In the event there are competing sets of evidence and the same requires sifting of facts in order to determine the correctness or otherwise of the age of candidate, then the presumption of the date of birth so recorded in an official document can also be subject to evidence, more so when the age of the candidate is being contested on other evidence as well. The requirement under the Act and Rules at the time of filing of the nomination only requires the voter list and a declaration as indicated above and which in a particular disputed case may require leading of evidence in order to resolve such a dispute. The returning officer in such a situation has to prima facie consider the right of a candidate to contest election but he cannot act as an election tribunal or a Court for finally adjudicating such a dispute when there are competing sets of evidence relating to age. The returning officer, therefore, having a limited role at the time of accepting or rejecting nomination can act on the basis of prima facie material before him but if the evidence is unimpeachable then in that event, the returning officer would be justified in taking a decision either way. 19. However, once the evidence is under challenge or there are competing sets of evidence then he has to take only a prima facie decision which would however be subject to the outcome of a election petition if such a candidate is declared successful in the elections. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view of the facts of the present case that have emerged herein above, we are of the opinion that the aggrieved person has an effective remedy of filing of an election petition under Section 12 C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947. The petition, therefore is not being entertained for what has been stated above. 21. However, the State Election Commission is required to take notice of such situations and formulate a policy as may be desirable at least in the case where a candidate has attended School or has passed a Board examination under a statutory provision to provide for acceptance of such documents for the purpose of nomination and also a declaration in the affidavit which has to be filed by a candidate about age. This is necessary as a person has only one physical birth and therefore, he cannot have two dates of birth. In order to avoid any mis-description or any undue advantage being taken by a candidate, the provision to that effect clarifying the dates of such documents, in the event a person has attended school or passed High School can be provided for in order to determine the age of a candidate. 22. In order to avoid any mis-description or any undue advantage being taken by a candidate, the provision to that effect clarifying the dates of such documents, in the event a person has attended school or passed High School can be provided for in order to determine the age of a candidate. 22. It is no doubt true that many of the candidates at times are not fortunate to have attended a school but that is a separate matter altogether inasmuch as such a candidate would not be subject to any such scrutiny. However, the State Election Commission can take care to scrutinise the credentials of those candidates who declare to have attended school or about whom such information is otherwise available at the time of filing nominations. 23. Over and above this, the State Government should also endeavour in its exercise to consider supplementing the 1994 Rules and to bring about any proposed Amendments that may be necessary in order to avoid any unnecessary contest on such issues in future. 24. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid observations with liberty to the aggrieved person to file an Election petition. Petition Disposed of.