JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. This petition impugns the judgment dated 20-10-2016 passed by the District Judge Karauli, where under the election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter the EP') challenging the election of the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') was allowed. The election of RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Jamura, Panchayat Samiti Karauli District Karauli has been set aside and directions were issued for an election afresh to the said post. 2. Election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Jamura 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 and yet in violation of the statutory mandate under Section 19(t) of the Act of 1994 contested election to the post of Sarpanch on the basis of a forged transfer certificate of class VIII. On notice on the election petition, the RC inevitably filed a reply of denial asserting that he was eligible to contest the election and has passed class VIII from the Government Upper Middle School Badagaon Khedla, Tehsil Mahua District Dausa. Transfer Certificate (Ex.18) purportedly showing the RC's qualification of having passed 8th class was relied upon. 3. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed three issues. Chief of which necessarily was whether the RC had not passed 8th class and hence was ineligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. 4. In support of the election petition, the EP examined himself as Aw-1, Jitendra Kumar Aw-2, and Rajendra Prasad Goyal AW-3. He exhibited 18 documents. The RC examined himself as NAW-1, Lajja Ram Verma NAW-2 and Siyaram NAW-3. No documentary evidence was produced by the RC. 5. On consideration of the evidence before it, the trial court held that the transfer certificate on the basis of which the RC claimed to have passed 8th class in 1981-82 from the Government upper middle school Badagaon Khedla Tehsil Mahuwa, Distrct Dausa was forged. No documentary evidence was produced by the RC. 5. On consideration of the evidence before it, the trial court held that the transfer certificate on the basis of which the RC claimed to have passed 8th class in 1981-82 from the Government upper middle school Badagaon Khedla Tehsil Mahuwa, Distrct Dausa was forged. For this conclusion, the trial court considered the evidence of Aw-2 Anil Kumar Vijayvargiya, the headmaster of Government Middle School Khediya, who stated that pursuant to directions of the District Education Officer, Karauli dated 18-6-2015 he conducted an enquiry with regard to RC's transfer certificate of 1981-82 claiming that he had passed class VIII from the Government upper Middle School Badagaon, Khedla District Dausa and from SR Registers of 1979 to 1982 of the concerned school that no student with the name of Heera Singh (RC) had studied at the said school in 1981-82 or otherwise. No admission form evidencing the RC's entry as a student in the said school was found from the records of the school. He also stated that the register of the results of 1981-82 could not be found during the enquiry, as results register of the school was reported stolen from the school in the night of 28-2-2015. In that regard FIR was lodged by the headmaster of the school. On the basis of aforesaid, the enquiry report (Ex.12) was submitted concluding that the RC had not studied in the school in 1981-82 or otherwise. Rajendra Prasad Goyal Aw-3, the headmaster of the Government upper Middle School Badagaon, Khedla District Dausa stated that as per records of the school the RC had not studied in the school in 1981-82 as claimed. The trial court on the aforesaid unshaken testimony of officials, disinterested witnesses held that RC had not passed 8th class, and had contested the election to the post of Sarpanch on the basis of a forged transfer certificate of class VIII. 6. In view of the finding on the aforesaid issue regarding the RC not having passed class VIII and therefore not being eligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch, the election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Jamura was set aside by the impugned judgment. Consequent directions were issued. Hence this petition. 7. 6. In view of the finding on the aforesaid issue regarding the RC not having passed class VIII and therefore not being eligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch, the election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Jamura was set aside by the impugned judgment. Consequent directions were issued. Hence this petition. 7. Counsel for the RC has submitted that the trial court committed a gross error and perversity in setting aside the election of the RC. He submitted that the election of the RC as Sarpanch reflected the democratic will of the electorate and for it to be undone, mere suspicion generated by the practice-nesses did not suffice. There was nothing on record from the EP's evidence to prove that the RC's class VIII transfer certificate (Ex.18) was forged. The trial court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction and set aside the election of the RC. Therefore the impugned judgment be set aside, argued counsel for the RC. 8. Counsel for EP supported the impugned judgment, reiterating the well settled legal position that a court exercising jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is not one of appeal. Its interference is only warranted in the event of a palpable perversity, patent illegality or error of jurisdiction in judgment/order of the court below. It was submitted that none of the aforesaid grounds even remotely obtained for the RC in this petition which therefore be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the RC and EP. Perused the impugned judgment dated 20-10-2016. 10. In Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram [ (1984) 2 SCC 281 ], also an election case, a Three Judge bench of the Apex Court held that in the facts of a given case, the court could hold as proved a fact if a reasonable probability supported the conclusion and an impossible standard of proof should not be laid down. The above enunciation applies fully to the instant case where the issue before the trial court was not one of corrupt practise at an election but one whether the RC had the requisite eligibility to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. 11. The above enunciation applies fully to the instant case where the issue before the trial court was not one of corrupt practise at an election but one whether the RC had the requisite eligibility to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. 11. The judgment of the trial court is fundamentally based on the fact that it was proved to its satisfaction on a wholistic appreciation of evidence on record that the RC was not a holder of a valid class VIII pass certificate, the essential educational qualification and term of eligibility to contest an election on the post of Sarpanch. The conclusion of the trial court is based on an objective consideration of the evidence on record at the instance of AW-2 and Aw-3, both officers of the government, not even remotely partisan or with any reason to have an axe to grind against the RC. It also considered the RC's failure subsequent to voluminous evidence on record as to falsity of the class VIII certificate relied upon by him to discharge the onus that the said certificate was genuine. The conclusions of the trial court are well considered and founded on appreciation of evidence on the standard of preponderance of probability as was required for the determination of the issue before the trial court. 12. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or for that matter one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petition under consideration also purports to be, this court's powers are not appellate. For invoking the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this court or for that matter its supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned judgment has to be established to be without jurisdiction, in violation of statutory provisions, misdirected in law and having entailed manifest injustice. None of the aforesaid situations is/are made out in the present case. The impugned judgment dated 20-10-2016 passed by the trial court is neither perverse nor suffers misdirection in law. The conclusions of the trial court of the RC being ineligible/disqualified to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch are wholly in order. The judgment of the trial court in the circumstances requires no interference. I therefore find no force in the petition and the same is dismissed.