Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1711 (RAJ)

Sunita Devi v. Anita Devi

2017-08-02

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner-returned candidate (for short 'RC') and the respondent - election petitioner (for short 'EP') and perused the impugned judgment dated 9.6.2017 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu allowing the EP's election petition filed under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules of 1994') Counsel for the RC fairly admits that at the time of filing nomination form for elections to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Khandwa, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, the RC had submitted a certificate of Class-X from the National Institute of Open Schooling, New Delhi. He submits that the said certificate not being authenticated by the institute, it rightly was not taken by the trial court as reflective of the RC's minimum educational qualification as required under Section 19 (t) of the Act of 1994. 2. Mr. R.P. Singh, however, emphatically submitted that the RC had also passed Class-VIII from Vidhyashram Sr. Secondary Public School, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. It was submitted that the RC thus had the requisite prescribed minimum educational qualification to contest election to the post of Sarpanch. The RC's qualification of Class-VIII pass, according to Mr. R.P. Singh, also came to be admitted by the EP in the course of her cross-examination. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the RC had the requisite minimum educational qualification and her election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khandwa, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu could not have been set-aside, as has been illegally done by the impugned judgment dated 9.6.2017 as it is vitiated by perversity. It was prayed that the judgment dated 9.6.2017 passed by the trial court be therefore set-aside. 3. Mr. Bharat Saini, counsel appearing for the EP submitted that for one : any document relating to the educational qualification not submitted before the Returning Officer at the time of filling up the nomination form cannot be relied upon as defence in an election petition filed against the RC were it so, the scrutiny of nomination form by the returning officer would cease to be of all relevance. Counsel submitted that even otherwise, the marks sheet of Class-VIII purportedly issued by Vidhyashram Sr. Counsel submitted that even otherwise, the marks sheet of Class-VIII purportedly issued by Vidhyashram Sr. Secondary Public School, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu relied upon by the RC was a duplicate issued in September, 2015, when in-fact the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khandwa was held in January, 2015. Mr. Bharat Saini submitted that this factum by itself is reflective of RC's Class-VIII marks sheet having been subsequently fraudulently procured to find a defence to the election petition. Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the statement of RC in the course of her cross-examination before the trial court, where she stated that- ^^esjs xzke iapk;r [kkanok ds ljiap in dk pquko yM+k FkkA pquko ds fy, vkosnu fd;k FkkA eSa nloh ikl gwaA eSaus nloha d{kk fnYyh ls ikl dh gSA eSaus uoh d{kk ls dh /;ku ugha gSA eSaus d{kk ikap rd dh i<+kbZ esjs ihgj xqrh ls dh gSA d{kk 6 o 7 dh i<+kbZ Hkh xqrh ls dh gSA eSaus d{kk 8 dh i<+kbZ fo/kk vkJe Ldwy ls dh gSA tks Ldwy fpM+kok esa gSA** 4. Counsel submitted that as against the RC's statement in the Court that she had passed Class-VI and VII from a school in village Gutee, her parental village, Ex.-A/1, the purported marks - sheet of RC having passed Class-VIII from Vidhyashram Sr. Secondary Public School, Khetri states that the RC had studied at the said school aside of Class-VIII also in class-VI and VII.. It was submitted that the RC's own statement therefore, falsifies Ex.-A/1, her purported marks sheet/TC of having passed Class-VIIIth from Vidhyashram Sr. Secondary Public School, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. Mr. Bharat Saini submitted that cross examination of the EP is being misconstrued by the RC to find admission of her Class- VIII qualification. Aside of the far fetchness of a situation where petitioner challenging the minimum educational qualification of a RC would admit to such a qualification, no such admission is made out and the statement is being disjointedly read by the RC. Properly read no such admission can be even remotely made out. 5. Heard. Considered. Under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 a nomination form is required to be scrutinized by the Returning Officer. The eligibility of a candidate has to be thus established before him. Properly read no such admission can be even remotely made out. 5. Heard. Considered. Under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 a nomination form is required to be scrutinized by the Returning Officer. The eligibility of a candidate has to be thus established before him. I am of the considered view that in the event the document of eligibility of a candidate including of minimum educational qualification submitted before the Returning Officer is found to be falsified having been forged and fabricated or inadequate, as in the instant case, it cannot be open for the RC to prop up his eligibility to contest on an additional document of her purported eligibility including the requisite minimum educational qualification not placed before the returning officer. If contrarily held, the scrutiny of nomination forms warranted under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1994 by the Returning Officer would perforce shift to the courts in election petitions when laid to challenge the election of a RC. This would completely overturn the procedure prescribed for contesting elections. It is well settled that right to vote and contest at elections are statutory rights and not legal rights or even fundamental rights. The methodology and procedure for contesting the election has to be strictly as prescribed - with no substantial variation. 6. I am therefore of the considered view that it did not lie with RC to set up a case of her minimum educational qualification beyond the educational qualification submitted before the returning officer. That bit of the purported educational qualification was established not to be adequate. Besides, Ex.-A/1, the purported marks sheet of the RC set up in reply to the election petition purportedly reflective of the RC having passed class-VI, VII, and VIII from Vidhyashram Sr. Secondary Public School, Khetri, on the face of it was clearly falsified by the RC's own cross-examination before the trial court where she stated that she had passed Class VI and VII from village Gutee. 7. Further it is on record that Ex.-A/1 - duplicate marks sheet/TC form set up in defence by the RC before the trial court was issued in September, 2015 whereas the election was held in January, 2015. The impunity with which the RC has resorted to falsehood in defending her election to the post of Sarpanch is thus stark. 7. Further it is on record that Ex.-A/1 - duplicate marks sheet/TC form set up in defence by the RC before the trial court was issued in September, 2015 whereas the election was held in January, 2015. The impunity with which the RC has resorted to falsehood in defending her election to the post of Sarpanch is thus stark. All these evidences have informed the impugned judgment dated 9.6.2017 whereby the RC's election as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khandwea, P.S. Buhana, District Jhunjhunu has been set-aside. 8. The limitation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of appreciation of evidence and finding of fact are too well known to be reiterated. This court cannot interfere as the impugned judgment suffers neither perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error. 9. There is no force in the petition. Dismissed. 10. However, if any criminal investigation is pending against the RC, it be expedited and concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event a challan has been filed thereupon, the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of 10 months, if necessary, on day to day basis.