Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1727 (RAJ)

MANJU DEVI @MANJU BAI v. SUMAN DEVI

2018-08-16

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Two writ petitions filed by Manju Devi have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 07/12/2017. The two writ petitions were filed because Manju Devi's election as a Sarpanch was set-aside and as a consequences her being elected in the panchayat samiti was also set-aside. 2. Dispute pertains to whether Manju Devi had the qualification prescribed to contest election to the post of a Sarpanch which required eligibility condition of being Class 8th pass. 3. While submitting the nomination form Manju Devi claimed that she had passed 8th standard from Vardhman Upper Primary School, Shivaji Park, Alwar where she studied as student in 1994-95 and relied upon a certificate dated 08/02/2014 issued by one Suman Jain, the Principal of the school. She also relied upon a mark-sheet issued by Suman Jain. 4. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination on the strength of the certificate issued. 5. In the election petitions filed, challenging petitioner's election on the ground that she was not qualified, evidence surfaced that the school in question which was functioning at Shivaji Park, Alwar was also closed in the year 2001-02 and it was shifted thereafter to Raath Nagar, Vijay Mandir Road, Alwar and that Suman Jain who had issued the certificate in the year 2014 had been shifted out from the school after session 2002-03 i.e. in the year 2014 she could not have issued the certificate. 6. The signature tune of the decision by the Election Tribunal i.e. the Court of District Judge is that the certificates issued by Suman Jain pertains to the year 1994-95 and were issued in the year 2014 when Suman Jain was no longer Principal of the school. The second reason is that the mark-sheet for the session 1994-95 issued by Suman Jain was on a proforma of a mark-sheet of the year 2001-02 and lastly that there was a mismatch between the alleged mark-sheet and the result sheet, in that marks for moral education were not reflected in the marksheet. 7. The above reasoning has been found to be sufficient by the learned Single Judge vide impugned decision dated 07/12/2017. 8. We have perused the documents in question which were exhibited at the trial. 7. The above reasoning has been found to be sufficient by the learned Single Judge vide impugned decision dated 07/12/2017. 8. We have perused the documents in question which were exhibited at the trial. The transfer certificate dated 08/02/2014 is Exh.2 which has been issued by Suman Jain certifies that Manju Devi was a student of Vardhman Upper Primary Public School, Shivaji Park, Alwar where she joined on 06/07/1993 and passed out on 16/05/1995. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant does not dispute that Suman Jain was no longer the Principal of the school when she issued the transfer certificate on 08/02/2014. Counsel could not explain as to how Suman Jain could have issued the certificate when she was no longer Principal of the school and did not have the records with her. The mark-sheet issued by Suman Jain as a duplicate copy uses the proforma for the year 2001 and by cutting it, written 1994-95. We wonder how Suman Jain could have issued the duplicate mark-sheet of the appellant without having any access to the record of the school. Further, as noted by the learned Single Judge there is a difference in the resultsheet and the mark-sheet. It is obvious that the documents are forged. 10. Only contention worth noting and dealing with is the argument that the Block Education Officer had submitted a report which was exhibited as Exh.10 as per which he opined that having seen the admission form Exh.1 pertaining to the appellant there was evidence that her father Ganesh Ram had got her admitted in the school on 06/07/1993. Counsel urges that this evidence has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is true that the report and the admission form has not been considered by the learned Single Judge but we highlight that the report is akin to a secondary evidence. The primary evidence would be the original transfer certificate issued to Manju Devi if at all she was a student in the school as claimed by her. The original mark-sheets would be the primary evidence. Assuming that she lost the original transfer certificate and the mark-sheet, she had to apply for a duplicate copy thereof to the school authorities. The primary evidence would be the original transfer certificate issued to Manju Devi if at all she was a student in the school as claimed by her. The original mark-sheets would be the primary evidence. Assuming that she lost the original transfer certificate and the mark-sheet, she had to apply for a duplicate copy thereof to the school authorities. She had obtained duplicate copies of the transfer certificate and the mark-sheet from Suman Jain in the year 2014 when Suman Jain was no longer the Principal of the school and we wonder as to how Suman Jain could have issued the same because she had no access to the record of the school. 12. Two appeals are accordingly dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.