Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2045 (RAJ)

Rafika Bano v. Salma Sherani

2018-10-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. Through this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Smt. Rafika Bano being the Sarpanch elect of Village Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur in the elections held in the year 2015 has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. (Election Petition) No.09/2015 filed by respondent Smt. Salma Sherani whereby the petitioner's election on the post of Sarpanch was set aside and the post was declared vacant. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted here-in-below:- 3. The respondent/election petitioner Smt. Salma Sherani challenged the petitioner's election as Sarpanch of the Village Sherani Abad on the ground that the educational testimonials/certificates pertaining to standard 8th which was mandatory qualification for contesting the election on the post of Sarpanch, as presented by the petitioner alongwith her nomination papers were fabricated and that the petitioner was disentitled to contest the election as she was not qualified for the post of Sarpanch. 4. The election petition came to be filed under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules. 4. The election petition came to be filed under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules. The relevant averments made by the respondent/election petitioner in her election petition and the counter filed thereto by the petitioner are germane for deciding the controversy and hence are reproduced here-in-below for the sake of ready reference:- ^^;g gS fd mDr Hkjr cky fudsru mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; jksy dh ekU;rk 27 flrEcj 1993 dks ekU;rk feyh gS tcfd vizkFkhZ la-1 loZ izFke ,Mfe'ku fnukad 12-7-1992 dks crk;k gSA blls Hkh bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us Vh lh o vadrkfydk feykoV djds QthaZ o dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj fd;s gS rFkk bu dwVjfpr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij mldk uke funsZ'ku i= Lohdkj gqvk gSA blls vizkFkhZ la-1 okLro esa pquko yM+us ds fy, l{ke ugh FkhA blls mDr pquko dks jnn fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA 5- ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ la-1 ds }kjk ?kksf"kr o /kkfjr cSad [kkrks dh tkudkjh Hkh izkIr dh muds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZ la-1 jQhd ckuks ds }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh f'k{kk xzg.k djus ;k 8 oh d{kk mRrhZ.kZ djus dk dksbZ jsdMZ ugha gSA blls 'kS{kf.kd lEcfU/kr nksuks nLrkost dwVjfpr gS vizkFkhZ la-1 jQhdk ckuksa us d{kk 8 oh dh f'k{kk dHkh xzg.k ugha dh o fuokZpu fnol rd ljiap in ds fy, vfgZr ugh Fkh ,oa blls ljiap in ij mldk fuokZpu 'kwqU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 6- ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ dk ,Mfe'ku fnukad 12-07-1992 dks crk;k tkrk gS tcfd fnukad 12-07-1992 dks jfookj dk fnu Fkk vkSj ml fnu NqVVh FkhA blls Hkh bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd vizkFkhZ la-1 us viuh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lEcU/k tks nLrkost is'k fd;s gS og QthZ o dwVjfpr gS tks mlus vukf/kd`r :i ls o diViwoZd o feykoV ls izkIr fd;s gSA ftl ij drbZ fo'okl ugha fd;k tkrk gSA exj fjVfuZxa vf/kdkjh us bl lEcU/k esa U;wt vkbZ Fkh tks U;wt izkFkhZ;k us viuh f'kdk;r ds lkFk izLrqr dh FkhA exj fjVfuZxa vf/kdkjh us mDr f'kdk;r dks ugh fy;k o vizkFkhZ ua- 1 ls feykoV djds xyr :i ls mldk uke funsZ'ku i= Lohdkj dj fy;k blls vizkFkhZ ua-1 dk ljiap dk pquko fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA^^ Written statement of the petitioner. ^^4- ;g gS fd ;kfpdk dk in la[;k 04 ftl izdkj ls fy[kk x;k gS og vlR; gS rFkk vLohdkj gS Hkjr cky fudsru fo|ky; jksy dh ekU;rk dc feyh vkSj izFke ,Mfe'ku dc gqvk ;g rks izkFkhZ lkfcr djsA ijUrq fo?kky; ds izkjEHk gksrs gh ekU;rk dh dksbZ vko';drk ugh gksrh gS lEcfU/kr ijh{kk ysrs le; o mldk ifj.kke tkjh djrs le; og fo/kky; ekU;rk izkIr gksuk pkfg;sA ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh izkFkhZ ds mDr vfHkopu vLkR; lkfcr gksrs gSa izkfFkZuh dk ;g dFku xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 us Vh-lh- o vadrkfydk dks fdlh izdkj ls feykoV vFkok QthZ rkSj ij izkIr fd;k gks vkSj izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku Hkh xyr gS fd mldk uke funsZ'ku i= xyr :Ik ls Lohdkj gqvk gks izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku Hkh xyr gS fd mDr pquko jnn djkus dk vf/kdkj gh ugh gSAa 5- ;g gS fd ;kfpdk dk in la[;k 05 iw.kZ:Ik ls xyr gS rFkk vLohdkj gS bl in esa of.kZr cSad [kkrksa ds vk/kkj ij vizkfFkZuh la[;k 01 dks D;ks o fdlh vk/kkj ij vui<+ crk;k tk ldrk gS ;g Li"V ugh gS ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ukxkSj ds le{k ;fn lEcfa/kr fo?kky; }kjk Hkstk x;k vFkok ugha Hkstk x;k bldk nkf;Ro vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 ij ugh vk ldrk gS vkSj u ,sls fdlh d`R; ds vk/kkj ij pquko ;kfpdk gh lankfjr gks ldrh gSA 6- ;g gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ in la[;k 06 iw.kZr;k vlR; gS rFkk vLohdkj gS bl in dks izkfFkuh lkfcr djsA ijUrq vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 ds }kjk tks nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;s Fks os nLrkost fdlh Hkh izdkj ls QthZ vFkok dwVjfpr nLrkost dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSA lekpkj i= dh fdlh lekpkj i=ks ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 fdlh izdkj ls fookf/kr ugh gSA lekpkj i=ks dh fdlh lekpkj ds vk/kkj ij u rks dksbZ pquko fujLr gks ldrk gS vkSj u ,sls dksbZ fof/kd izko/kku gSA^^^ 5. The respondent/election petitioner also filed her affidavit by way of Examination-in-chief to prove her case before the Election Tribunal. The relevant portions of the affidavit filed by the respondent/election petitioner are also reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. The respondent/election petitioner also filed her affidavit by way of Examination-in-chief to prove her case before the Election Tribunal. The relevant portions of the affidavit filed by the respondent/election petitioner are also reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. ^^2- ;g gS fd jktLFkku jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt laLFkk ds fuokZpu 2015 ds fy, vf/klwpuk tkjh dh vkSj vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj ljiap in ds mEehnokj ds fy, de ls de vkBoh d{kk ikl gksuk t:jh dj fn;k x;kA 3- ;g gS fd mDr ljiap in ds fy, vkBoh ikl d{kk ikl gksuk t:jh Fkk] ysfdu xzke 'kSjkuh vkckn esa jQhdk ckuks vkBoh ikl ugh Fkh vkSj ljiap in ds pquko yM+us ds ;ksX; ugh Fkh vkSj jQhdk ckuksa ,d ne iwjh vui<+ Fkh] jQhdk ckuks vkBoh ikl rks cM+h ckr gS] og igyh d{kk Hkh ikl ugh FkhA 4- ;g gS fd jQhdk ckuks us QkeZ ds fy, vkBoh ikl dk izek.k&i= ds :i es Hkjr cky fudsru mPp izkFkfed fo?kky;] jksy Ldwy dh QthZ Vh-lh- o ekdZ'khV is'k dh FkhA jQhdk ckuks mDr jksy Ldwy es dHkh i<+h gh ugh Fkh] fdUrq mlus vkSj ifr yqdeku [kkW] llqj [kyhy vgen us Ldwy okyks ls feyh Hkxr dj QthZ Vh-lh- o ekdZ'khV vkBoh ikl dh cuokbZA 5- ;g gS fd jQhdk ckuks Hkjr cky fudsru mPp izkFkfed fo/kky;] jksy esa viuk ,Mfe'ku lu 12&7&1992 dks crk;k] tcfd ml fnukad dks jfookj dh NqVVh dk fnu Fkk vkSj tcfd Ldwy dks ekU;rk o"kZ 1993 esa feyh Fkh vkSj Vh-lh- esa ekU;rk fnukad 07-08-1991 es n'kkZbZ xbZ gSA 6- ;g gS fd jQhdk ckuks vius vkidks i<+h fy[kh crkrh gS vkSj viuk ,Mfe'ku u- 12&7&1992 esa d{kk 6 esa crkrh gS vkSj fnukad 15-05-1995 esa d{kk vkBoh dh Vh-lh- izek.k&i= izkIr dj ysrh gS] tcfd jQhdk ckuks dh 'kknh lu~ lyek 'kSjkuh 11@11@1998 esa gqbZ Fkh vkSj og viuk fudkg ukek esa viuk vaxwBk dk fu'kku yxk;k Fkk] ftldk fudkg ukek dkth uqljr vyh lkgc us djok;k Fkk D;ksfd og i<+h fy[kh ugh FkhA vxj jQhdk ckuks 1995 esa vkBoh ikl gksrh gS rks lu 1998 esa fudkgukek esa vaxwBk fu'kku D;ksa yxkrh gSA jQhdk ckuks fcYdqy vui<+ gSA 7- ;g gS fd jQhdk ckuks us vkBoh ikl dh QthZ Vh-lh- o ekZd'khV cukdj pquko yM+ fy;kA og nwljh mEehnokj xqy'ku ckuks mDr QthZ okM+k dk iqfyl eqdnek QkStnkjh iqfyl Fkkuk] [kqu[kquk esa ntZ djk;k] ftlesa iqfyl us tkWp dh vkSj mDr Vh-lh- dk ekdZ'khV mDr Ldwy dk QthZ ek;k] ftldh izekf.kr izfr;kW eSusa is'k dh gSA 8- ;g gS fd jQhdk ckuks ljiap ds ;ksX; ugha Fkh vkSj u gh gSA blfy, mldk pquk voS|] v;ksX; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos vkSj mls ljiap in ls gVk;k tkosA^^ 6. The Tribunal framed following issues for consideration:- 10- mi;qZDr vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; }kjk fuEukafdr fook|d fojfpr fd;s x;s %& 1- vk;k vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 01 jQhdk ckuks }kjk fnukad 31-01-2015 dks fjVfuZx vf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k fd;s x;s 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds nLrkost dwVjfpr o QthZ gksus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 01 dk fuokZpu 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos \ -------ftEEks izkFkhZ;k 2- vk;k izdj.k esa fjVfuZx vf/kdkjh dks vko';d i{kdkj ugha cukus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ;k dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ ---------------------ftEes vizkFkhZx.k 7. It may be stated here that the petitioner- returned candidate did not lead any evidence to counter the allegations of the respondent/election petitioner and only relied upon the admissions/shortcomings allegedly existing in the case of the election petitioner to contest the issues. 8. Be that as it may. The Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence led before it by the respondent/election petitioner held both the issues proved. The Tribunal drew adverse inference against the petitioner being the returned Sarpanch as she failed to lead evidence to counter the allegations of the respondent/election petitioner and proceeded to accept the election petition and set aside the petitioner's election as Sarpanch of the Village Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur by the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016 which is assailed in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The thrust of arguments advanced by Shri M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Bhavit Sharma to assail the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016 was:- 1. That the respondent/election petitioner failed to lead an iota of evidence to prove & establish that the educational testimonials/certificates of VIII standard presented by the petitioner along with her nomination form were forged or fabricated in any manner. He further contended that the burden of proof to establish the issue was totally upon the respondent/election petitioner and no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner by her non-appearance as a witness in the proceedings before the Election Tribunal. He urged that since the respondent/election petitioner failed to prove by cogent and convincing evidence or even by preponderance of probability that the educational testimonials/certificates of the petitioner were forged or fabricated in any manner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear in the witness box. He urged that since the respondent/election petitioner failed to prove by cogent and convincing evidence or even by preponderance of probability that the educational testimonials/certificates of the petitioner were forged or fabricated in any manner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear in the witness box. As per Shri Singhvi, the requirement to lead evidence in rebuttal would only arise had the election petitioner been able to prove her case by a shred of evidence. 2. The concerned witness from the School where the petitioner studied were neither summoned nor examined in evidence and thus, the Tribunal should have concluded that the certificates were never disproved. 3. That merely because the date on which the petitioner got admitted in the School was a Sunday that by itself would not make the educational certificates invalid because the date appearing on the certificate, might have been appended owing to some clerical error. 4. That no significance can be attached to the fact that the petitioner did not offer any explanation in her written statement regarding the insignificant shortcomings pointed out by the election petitioner in the pleadings of her election petition because the burden to prove the fact alleged is always on the party making the assertion. 5. That the Tribunal relied upon inadmissible evidence viz newspaper reports and confessional statement of the petitioner recorded by the police while concluding the issues against the petitioner and thus, the impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law. 10. In support of his arguments/contentions, Shri Singvhi relied upon following judgments:- 1. Hanuman Prasad V/s District Judge, Merta & Ors,2001 2 WLC(Raj) 423 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.726/2001), decided on 16.03.2001 2. Narayan Lal V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2003 2 DNJ 661 (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.715/2001 3. Sampati Devi V/s Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Bharatpur & Ord,2014 WLC(UC)(Raj) 373 (S.b. Civil Writ Petition No.19038/2012) decided on 28.11.2013 4. V.K. Mishra & Another. V/s State of Uttarakhand & Anr, (2015) CrLR 937 (Criminal Appeal No.1247; with 1248 of 2012) decided on 28.07.2015. 5. Laxmi Raj Sheety and Others. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) AIR SC 1274 (Criminal Appeal No.36/1987, decided on 26.04.1988 6. Ratan Lal Soni Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, (1994) 1 WLC(Raj) 679 (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4710/1989 decided on 29.07.1993 11. 5. Laxmi Raj Sheety and Others. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) AIR SC 1274 (Criminal Appeal No.36/1987, decided on 26.04.1988 6. Ratan Lal Soni Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, (1994) 1 WLC(Raj) 679 (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4710/1989 decided on 29.07.1993 11. On these grounds, he implored the Court to exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned judgment as being grossly illegal and having been passed without existence of admissible evidence to prove the issues against the petitioner. 12. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajesh Joshi assisted by Shri Harshit Bhurani, appearing for the respondent election petitioner vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by petitioner's Counsel. 13. He contented that the respondent election petitioner made a specific assertion in her election petition & affidavit regarding the returned candidate (petitioner) never having studied in the 8th standard of Bharat Bal Niketan High Secondary School, Rol and that the educational certificates submitted by her along with the nomination form were fabricated. The specific and pertinent assertions made in the pleading & evidence of the election petitioner regarding the educational certificates of the returned candidate being forged and that the school itself was not in existence on the date on which the returned candidate claims to have got admitted therein and regarding the date of admission of the petitioner portrayed in the School documents being Sunday were not countered even in the pleadings what to talk of evidence and thus, adverse inference was rightly drawn against her by the Tribunal on this aspect. 14. He further argued that during pendency of the proceedings before the Election Tribunal, the competent criminal court has framed charge against the petitioner on allegations of contesting the election on the basis of forged educational certificates. He urged that the petitioner is totally disqualified from holding the post of Sarpanch and hence, the election tribunal was perfectly justified in accepting the election petition and setting aside the petitioner's election on the allegation that she used forged educational certificates for contesting the election. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition and affirm the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal whereby the petitioner's election as Sarpanch was set aside. 15. I have given by thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and gone through the material available on record. 16. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition and affirm the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal whereby the petitioner's election as Sarpanch was set aside. 15. I have given by thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and gone through the material available on record. 16. This Court feels that fulcrum the entire controversy revolves around the pleadings of the parties and the reluctance of the petitioner to appear in evidence for rebutting the allegations of the respondent/election petitioner. In this regard, the contention of Shri Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner was that there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear in evidence because the election petitioner failed to prove her case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 17. It may be stated here that the evidence of parties in a civil case has to be assessed and evaluated on preponderance of probabilities rather than on the yardstick of proof beyond all moment of doubt. Under these circumstances, even if a strong doubt is created in the mind of the Court that the party concerned has been able to prove the allegations by preponderance of probability, adverse inference can definitely be drawn against the other party if it fails to rebut such allegations by leading appropriate evidence. Since admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal, the only issue which this Court is required to adjudicate is as to whether the election tribunal was justified in relying upon the unrebutted allegations & testimony of the election petitioner for deciding the issues against the petitioner being the returned candidate. 18. The specific assertion made by the election petitioner at paras Nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the election petition (quoted infra) was that the Bharat Bal Niketan High Secondary School, Rol of which the returned candidate submitted the 8th Standard certificate got recognized on 27.09.1993 whereas the petitioner claims to have been admitted therein on 12.07.1992 which was a Sunday and thus, there was no possibility of the petitioner/returned candidate having taken admission in any such school on the given date. 19. 19. It was further averred at para 5 of the election petition that no corresponding record of the school so as to corroborate the certificate held by the petitioner was available in the office of the District Education Officer and thus the educational certificates submitted by the petitioner were fake and she was disqualified from contesting the election. In the reply offered by the petitioner to these paras of the election petition (reproduced above), bald denial was made claiming that the onus of proving these facts lay on the election petitioner. If the defendant fails to deny the allegations made in pleadings of a plaint, the same can be considered to be an admission and thus, this circumstance can be considered sufficient to draw adverse inference. 20. Thus, this Court is convinced that the petitioner being the defendant in the proceedings failed to even offer any significant denial to the pertinent assertions made in the election petition regarding the documents/educational certificates submitted along with the nomination form for contesting the election on the post of Sarpanch being fabricated. 21. Evidence of the election petitioner has to be evaluated keeping in view the bald denial by the petitioner to the pertinent assertion made in the election petition. The respondent election petitioner gave her affidavit by way of Examination-in-chief wherein at paras Nos.3,4,5 & 6 (reproduced infra), she emphatically swore that the petitioner Smt. Rafika Bano being the returned candidate was not qualified to contest the election on the post of Sarpanch because the educational certificates i.e., the Transfer Certificate & Marksheet submitted by her alongwith her nomination papers were fake and that she had never studied in the Bharat Bal Niketan High Secondary School, Rol. The date on which the petitioner claims to have taken admission was 12.07.1992 which was a government holiday being a Sunday and that the School was granted recognition in the year 1993 whereas the date of recognition mentioned in the TC submitted by the petitioner is 07.08.1991. 22. In the entire cross examination conducted by the petitioner returned candidate from the respondent election petitioner, not even a bald suggestion was given to her that the School was actually in existence in the year 1992 and the petitioner had taken admission therein on the date mentioned in the TC i.e., 12.07.1992. 22. In the entire cross examination conducted by the petitioner returned candidate from the respondent election petitioner, not even a bald suggestion was given to her that the School was actually in existence in the year 1992 and the petitioner had taken admission therein on the date mentioned in the TC i.e., 12.07.1992. A pertinent question was put to the respondent/election petitioner in cross-examination to which she replied as below iz'u &% mDr fo|ky; dc ls izkjEHk gqvk\ fdruh d{kk rd gS\ vkSj mlesa fdruh d{kk esa fdrus fo|kFkhZ gS\ blds ckjs esa vkidks tkudkjh gS D;k\ mŸkj & Hkjr cky fudsru lu~ 1993 esa iathd`r gqvk Fkk tcfd jQhdk ckuks us 1992 esa jfookj ds fnu vius izos'k gksuk crk;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd ;g fo|ky; dc ls izkjEHk gqvk vkSj mlesa fdrus fo?kkFkhZ gS] mlds eSus dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd, gSA fQj xokg us Loa; dgk fd Vh-lh esa jQhdk ckuks us 1991 esa Ldwy dh ekU;rk n'kkZ;h gSA ;g lgh gS fd mDr fo|ky; dks 1993 esa ekU;rk feyus ds lEcU/k esa eSus dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gSA 23. Manifestly, thus, not only did the petitioner fail to lead evidence in rebuttal but even in the cross examination conducted from the respondent, it was established beyond all manner of doubt that the school certificates submitted by the petitioner alongwith her nomination form were fabricated as the School did not exist in the year 1992 and because the date of admission mentioned in the certificate as 12.07.1992 which was a Sunday. These facts established beyond all manner doubt that the educational testimonials submitted by the petitioner were fabricated. 24. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is amply satisfied that the respondent/election petitioner proved not only by preponderance of probabilities but rather beyond all manner of doubt that the educational certificates i.e., Transfer Certificate (Exhibit-3) and Mark sheet of 8th standard (Exhibit-2) submitted by the petitioner along with her nomination form were fabricated. The reasons for recording this satisfaction are elaborated below. 25. As per the un-controveted allegations of the election petitioner Smt. Salma Sheran, Bharat Bal Niketan High Secondary School, Rol was recognized in the year 1993 whereas the TC (Exhibit-3) bears the date 12.07.1992, on which the petitioner allegedly got admitted. Further the Transfer Certificate bears the date of recognition as 07.08.1991. 25. As per the un-controveted allegations of the election petitioner Smt. Salma Sheran, Bharat Bal Niketan High Secondary School, Rol was recognized in the year 1993 whereas the TC (Exhibit-3) bears the date 12.07.1992, on which the petitioner allegedly got admitted. Further the Transfer Certificate bears the date of recognition as 07.08.1991. Since the respondent/election petitioner made a specific allegation that the school was not in existence in the year 1992 and as this fact was not denied by the petitioner in her written statement, the burden to rebut this fact totally shifted on to the petitioner who failed to discharge such burden by even a shred of evidence. 26. The fact regarding certificate (Exhibit-3) being fabricated is also firmly proved by the noting made thereupon which mentions that Bharat Bal Niketan High Secondary School, Rol had been recognized on 07.08.1991. The election petitioner has made a pertinent assertion in her election petition and in her affidavit that the School was recognized in the year 1993. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to counter this allegation. 27. The Marksheet (Exhibit-2) and Transfer Certificate (Exhibit-3) submitted by the petitioner are also fabricated for the reason that the date of admission of the petitioner in the School is recorded in these documents as 12.07.1992 which was a Government Holiday i.e., Sunday. Thus, once the election petitioner made allegations to this effect, the burden definitely and unquestionably shifted on to the petitioner to disprove and explain as to how her admission could be made in the school on a Sunday and she miserably failed to discharge this burden. 28. Shri Singhvi cited numerous judgments before this Hon'ble Court to buttress the proposition that a disqualification which comes into being at a subsequent stage i.e., after declaration of result of election, cannot be used to set aside the election of the returned Sarpanch. Suffice it to say that the judgments cited by Shri Singhvi on this aspect have no application to the controversy at hand. Though the Election Tribunal, considered the submission regarding the competent court framing charge against the petitioner after the result of the elections was declared, but this fact was noted just as a passing reference and was not the basis for concluding the issues. Though the Election Tribunal, considered the submission regarding the competent court framing charge against the petitioner after the result of the elections was declared, but this fact was noted just as a passing reference and was not the basis for concluding the issues. Foundation of the impugned judgment is unquestionably based on the fact that the educational certificates presented by the petitioner were fabricated and that she had not passed 8th standard so as to qualify for contesting the election in question. 29. In the case of of Smt. Sampati Devi, dismissal of the election petition by the Election Tribunal on the ground of lack of material pleadings and particulars was affirmed. However, in the case at hand, it is clear that not only did the election petitioner allege in her election petition that the petitioner made a false claim about her educational qualifications while contesting the election but she also proved these allegations by leading cogent and convicting evidence. Thus, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts. A plea was also raised by Shri Singhvi that trial court relied upon the confession of the petitioner recorded by the investigating officer during investigation which is not substantive piece of evidence. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon the judgment passed in V.K.Mishra's case. Suffice it to say that though the Tribunal has referred to the confessional statement of the petitioner but implict reliance was not placed thereupon so as to conclude the issues. Thus the judgment in the case of V.K. Mishra is also not applicable to the controversy at hand. The judgments in the cases of Laxmi Raj Sheety and Others. Vs State of Tamil Nadu : Criminal Appeal No.36/1987, decided on 26.04.1988 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Ratan Lal Soni vs State of Rajasthan and Others. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4710/1989 decided on 29.07.1993 passed by this Court, upon which Shri Singhvi relied upon deal with non-admissibility of newspaper reports. In this regard, it may be stated that though the newspaper reports were referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment but the issues were not decided on the basis of these reports. Thus, the judgments relied upon by Shri Singhvi are of no help to the petitioner. 30. In this regard, it may be stated that though the newspaper reports were referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment but the issues were not decided on the basis of these reports. Thus, the judgments relied upon by Shri Singhvi are of no help to the petitioner. 30. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the election tribunal was perfectly justified in deciding the issues against the petitioner being the returned Sarpanch and in setting aside her election while accepting the election petition on the ground that the educational certificates pertaining to 8th Standard submitted by the petitioner along with her nomination papers were fabricated and that she was not duly qualified to contest the election. The findings recorded by the Election Tribunal in impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur are based on appropriate and apropos appreciation of evidence available on record and do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or error apparent on the face of record, requiring interference therein in exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 31. In view of the discussion made herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Stay application is dismissed. No order as to costs.