JUDGMENT : Mr. Alok Sharma, J. 1. The two petitions, one filed by the returned candidate (hereinafter ‘the RC’) and the other by the election petitioner (hereinafter the EP’) both challenge the judgment dated 3-3-2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge Dausa, where under the election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawar Panchayat Samiti Mahawa District Dausa has been set aside and a declaration issued that the EP would stand elected as Sarpanch. While the RC has challenged the impugned judgment setting aside of her election as Sarpanch, and declaring the EP elected to the said post, the EP has challenged the judgment of the trial court to the extent of its findings on issues No.1,2,4A and 4B, all against her. Therefore, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawar Panchayat Samiti Mahawa District Dausa was called in question under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1994’) read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1994’) by the EP inter alia alleging that the RC had not passed class VIII, from a recognised school, the minimum requisite educational qualification for contesting election to the post of Sarpanch under the Act of 1994. It was contended that the documents filed by the RC with regard to her class VIII pass were not genuine but forged and fabricated and yet fraudulently used to the RC’s knowledge. The RC’s election was thus liable to be set aside. It was further alleged that votes clearly and unequivocally cast in favour of EP were irregularly/wrongly folded by the polling party due to which some of them came to be rendered invalid and rejected for reason of rubbing over against the name of other candidates in the contest, to the EP’s disadvantage. The prayer made in the election petition was thus also for proper counting of votes cast at the election in issue. 3. On notice on the election petition, the RC filed reply of denial stating that there was no illegality in conducting the election or irregularity in counting of votes. It was stated that at the time of counting of votes the EP made no complaint to the concerned officers in regard thereto. 3. On notice on the election petition, the RC filed reply of denial stating that there was no illegality in conducting the election or irregularity in counting of votes. It was stated that at the time of counting of votes the EP made no complaint to the concerned officers in regard thereto. The RC claimed that she had passed class VIII and was eligible to contest the election. 4. Non applicants No.2,7,11 and 13 filed separate reply and submitted that polling officers committed illegality by not considering the complaint of the EP’s agent with regard to illegalities during counting of votes, missing of a bundle of 49 votes and rejection of 245 votes. However subsequently these non applicants did not appear in the court and were proceeded against ex-parte. 5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- D;k fnukad 24-01-2015 dks xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksMk rglhy egok ds ljiap in ij gq;s pquko esa erx.kuk ds nkSjku vfu;ferrk dh x;h\ & ;kph 2- D;k ;kph fnukad 24-01-2015 dks xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksM+k rglhy egok ds ljiap in gq;s pquko esa Mkys x;s dqy eri=ksa dh iqu% erx.kuk djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & ;kph 3- D;k ;kph Lo;a dks lokZf/kd er izkIr gksus ds dkj.k xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksM+k] rglhy egok dk ljiap ?kksf"kr djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & ;kph 4- D;k v;kph la[;k ,d }kjk 8oha ikl dh QthZ vadrkfydk funsZ’ku i= ds lkFk yxkdj xzke iapk;r /kkSy[ksM+k rglhy egok nkSlk ds ljiap in dk pquko yM+k x;k gSA bl dkj.k ;kph v;kph la[;k ,d ds pquko dks ‘kwU; ?kksf"kr djok;s tkus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & ;kph 4-d & D;k ernku ds nkSjku iksfyax ikVhZ ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ernkrkvksa ls eri= Nhudj eri= dks mYVk QksYM fd;k x;k ftlls er i= fjtsDV gq;s gS o ernku esa xM+cM+h gq;h gS\ 4-[k & D;k ;kfpdkdrkZ ;k mlds erx.kuk vfHkdrkZ }kjk fyf[kr esa iquZerx.kuk dk vkosnu fd;k ftls erx.kuk vf/kdkjh us ugha ekuk] blfy;s ;kfpdkdrkZ iquZerx.kuk djok;s tkus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & ;kph 6. In support of the election petition, the EP examined herself as Pw-1, Govind Singh Pw-2, Man Singh PW-3, Ghanshyam Avasthi Pw-4, Kishore Pw-5, Harbhan Singh Pw-6, Girraj Pw-7, Jagdish Pw 8, Mahavir Pw-9, Shiv Shakti Singh Pw-10, Renu Pw-11, and Rakesh Kumar Pw-12 and exhibited 53 documents. In support of the election petition, the EP examined herself as Pw-1, Govind Singh Pw-2, Man Singh PW-3, Ghanshyam Avasthi Pw-4, Kishore Pw-5, Harbhan Singh Pw-6, Girraj Pw-7, Jagdish Pw 8, Mahavir Pw-9, Shiv Shakti Singh Pw-10, Renu Pw-11, and Rakesh Kumar Pw-12 and exhibited 53 documents. The RC examined herself as DW-1, Manoj Dw-2, Mukesh Dw-3, Bhujpal Dw-4, Shriphool Dw-5, Ramswaroop Dw-6, Panchuram Dw-7, and Shivraj Singh Dw-8 and exhibited fifteen documents. 7. On consideration of the evidence before it, the trial court held that the EP failed to prove issues No.1,2,4A and 4B regarding irregularities alleged in counting of votes, EP’s entitlement for recounting of votes, particularly those rejected for reason of being folded to her disadvantage or allegedly not counted was found unsustainable. The trial court found that there were contradiction in the statements of EP’s witnesses with regard to illegalities/ irregularities in folding, counting and rejection of votes. Therefore, issues 1,2,4A and 4B were decided against the EP. 8. However, on issue No.4 regarding the RC contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch of village Daulakhera on the basis of a forged class VIII mark-sheet and transfer certificate, the trial court found against the RC after examining the attendance register of Rahul Public School (Ex. 32 to 52) where the RC claimed to have studied from 1994-97 from class VI till she passed class VIII. It appears from the attendance register that the RC got admission in the Rahul Pubic School on 8-7-1994. While the RC’s Transfer certificate shows the date of admission to be 10-07-1994, a Sunday. The certified copy of Ex.33, i.e., the attendance register of RC’s class VII was different from the Ex.A6 as exhibited by the RC. Pw.12 Rakesh, Head Master, Rahul Public School, appeared in court and stated that neither the admission form of RC in class VI in the year 1994, nor the transfer certificate from the Government Upper Primary School, Nithar evidencing her having passed class V and entitled to admission into class VI was found on the records of the Rahul Public School. He stated that Ex.32 to 52 appeared to be the genuine copies of the Rahul Public School records. He stated that Ex.32 to 52 appeared to be the genuine copies of the Rahul Public School records. It was also noted by the trial court that the mark-sheet of class VIII was found to be on a format as printed after 2000, although it related to academic year 1996-97, which further raised serious doubts of its authenticity. Pw.12 stated that neither Ex.A8 (mark-sheet of Class VIII) nor Ex.A7 (Transfer Certificate) had been issued by him. The headmaster who purportedly issued the said documents Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 did not enter the witness box. These facts played a critical role in diluting the credibility of RC’s claims of having passed class VIII from Rahul Public School, Todabhim whereof she was admittedly not a resident and which was over 30kms from her village. 9. The above evidence was supplemented by RC’s cross examination, wherein she admitted that she could not read the affidavit filed by her. Further her class V transfer certificate from the Government Upper Primary School Nithar was not issued until 2015, despite being necessary for the alleged admission into class VI in the Rahul Public School, Todabhim in 1994. This evidence was sufficient to raise serious doubts before the trial court about the RC’s academic qualifications of having class VIII pass. 10. The EP, having placed sufficient evidence to discharge the initial burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the onus shifted on the RC to rebut the said evidence by producing worthwhile defence, not the least the best evidence in her possession with regard to her having studied class VI to class VIII at the Rahul Public School, Todabhim even while her parents were residents of Nithar, over 30kms away. The trial court found that RC couldn’t do that from her evidence to its satisfaction particularly as the originals of Ex.A8 or Ex.A7 (mark-sheet or TC) were not exhibited and merely photocopies, with no witness to authenticate that RC was issued the aforesaid mark-sheet/ TC relating to her passing class VIII from Rahul Public School, Todabhim. 11. The Trial Court didn’t find any credibility in the enquiry conducted by Dw.8 Shivraj Singh, Principal, Govt. School, who purportedly found that the RC’s Class VIII pass mark-sheet and Transfer Certificate from the Rahul Public School were genuine. 11. The Trial Court didn’t find any credibility in the enquiry conducted by Dw.8 Shivraj Singh, Principal, Govt. School, who purportedly found that the RC’s Class VIII pass mark-sheet and Transfer Certificate from the Rahul Public School were genuine. As in his cross examination, Shivraj Singh admitted that he did not make any enquiry about the fact of admission and attendance of the RC in the Rahul Public School during the period she claimed to be a student there between 1994-1997. 12. For its conclusion that the RC was not class VIII pass, the trial court relied upon Exhibits 32 to 52, the documents produced with an application by RC herself, and concluded that there was sufficient evidence on record to doubt RC’s claim of studying in the Rahul Public School, Todabhim, from class VI through class VIII. The court on an objective consideration both of the EP’s and RC’s evidence concluded that RC contested the election on the basis of a forged mark sheet of class VIII and transfer certificate. She was not class VIII pass and hence ineligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch under Section 19(t) of the Act of 1994. The RC’s election as Sarpanch was set aside. And as the EP was admittedly the candidate with the second highest number of votes secured, she was declared elected as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Dhaulkhera, Tehsil Mahawar, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa, District Dausa. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the RC and EP. Perused the impugned judgment dated 3-3-2013. 14. Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Shashikant Saini for the RC vociferously tried to have this court to have a relook at the evidence before the trial court, in an effort to submit that the finding of the trial court on issue No.4 is perverse. This court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot do so, as it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction, nor even revisional jurisdiction. The supervisory jurisdiction of this court under the aforesaid provision can only be invoked in situations of perversity, patent illegality or error of jurisdiction leading to manifest injustice. None of the situations aforesaid obtains in the instant case. Contrarily, far from being perverse, the finding of fact, on the standard of proof limited to preponderance of probabilities as would attract in the instant case. None of the situations aforesaid obtains in the instant case. Contrarily, far from being perverse, the finding of fact, on the standard of proof limited to preponderance of probabilities as would attract in the instant case. On the issue of the RC’s class VIII mark-sheet (A8) and the Transfer Certificate (A7) being forged/ fabricated is very plausible based as it is on an objective consideration of the evidence on record. No interference therewith is warranted. 15. Nor in fact there is any plausible ground for this court to interfere with the findings of the trial court on issues No.1,2,4A and 4B as prayed for by the EP in SBCWP No.6140/2017. There was no requisite evidence on record before the trial court to hold in favour of the EP on the aforesaid issues. Again this court cannot reassess or reweigh the evidence before the trial court or second guess it on its consequential effects on issue Nos.1,2,4A and 4B. In the circumstances, I see no warrant for this court’s interference with the trial court’s finding on the aforesaid issues under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned judgment dated 3-3-2017 is upheld to the extent of the election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawa Panchayat Samiti Mahawa, District Dausa being set aside. 17. However, in so far as the impugned judgment with reference to issue No.3 before the trial court declaring the EP, as the second highest vote secured at the election to be elected to the post of Sarpanch of Dhaulakhera, consequently elected. It is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that admittedly the election to the post of Sarpanch Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawar Panchayat Samiti Mahawa, District Dausa, was not a two cornered contest confined to the RC and the EP. The election in issue was admittedly a 16 concerned contest. It is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that admittedly the election to the post of Sarpanch Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawar Panchayat Samiti Mahawa, District Dausa, was not a two cornered contest confined to the RC and the EP. The election in issue was admittedly a 16 concerned contest. The Apex Court in the case of Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda [ AIR 1969 SC 604 ] has held that when there are only two contesting candidates, and one of them is under a statutory disqualification, votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate may be regarded as thrown away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the disqualification or not, and no fresh poll was necessary, and in such a situation the consequence was of the other qualified candidate, the election petitioner being declared elected by the court. This is however not to say that where there are more than two candidates in the field for a single seat, and one alone is disqualified, on proof of his disqualification all the votes cast in his favour will be discarded and the candidate securing next highest number of votes will be declared elected. In such a case notice to the voters may assume significance, for the voters may not, if aware of the disqualification have voted for the disqualified candidate. Hence in a multi cornered election, the holding of the election of the returned candidate as invalid and liable to be set aside does not entail declaration of the candidate with the second highest votes as elected. In the case of Prakash Khandre v. Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre [ (2002)5 SCC 568 ] the Apex Court held that where there are more than two candidates for one seat and the elected candidate subsequently is found to be disqualified, the candidate who secured more votes than the remaining candidates cannot be declared as elected. Votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate cannot be regarded as thrown away, nor can it be presumed that those votes would have been secured by the next candidate who secured the second highest votes. The obtaining legal position has also been reiterated by this court in the case of Ummed Kanwar v. Prabhu Singh, SBCWP No.5201/2012, decided on 10-5-2012. The obtaining legal position has also been reiterated by this court in the case of Ummed Kanwar v. Prabhu Singh, SBCWP No.5201/2012, decided on 10-5-2012. In the state of law recorded above, the trial court in its impugned judgment committed a palpable perversity in declaring that for reason of the setting aside of the election of the returned candidate, despite the election having been a 16 cornered contest, the election petitioner with the second highest number of votes was entitled to be declared elected. 18. The petition is according partly allowed to the extent stated above i.e. the setting aside of the election of the petitioner RC by the trial court in its impugned judgment dated 3-3-2017 is upheld, but the declaration of the EP as elected to the post of Sarpanch Dhaulakhera, Tehsil Mahawa, Panchayat Samiti Mahawa, District Dausa is set aside. 19. Accordingly, the petition (SBCWP 3642/2017) stands partly allowed, and the petition (SBCWP No.6140/2017) stands dismissed. 20. A copy of the judgment be placed in the connected file. SBCWP 3642/2017 Partly Allowed, SBCWP 6140/2017 Dismissed.