Matriculation Certificate Is Conclusive Proof Of Date Of Birth : Rajasthan HC Upholds Order Disqualifying Candidate From Post Of Sarpanch For Having Additional Children After Cut Off Date

The High Court relied upon the Class 10th mark-sheets of both the children issued by the Board of Secondary Education for ascertaining their date of birth.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand asserted, “He has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that if dates of birth of his son and daughter are not correct in the marksheets of Class 10th issued by the Board of Secondary Education, even then why no steps have been taken by anyone of them, for correction of the date of birth in the records of Board of Secondary Education”

Senior Advocate R.B. Mathur represented the Petitioner while Advocate Rajesh Kumar Sharma represented the Respondents.

The High Court was considering a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge by which the Election Petition, filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayti Raj (Election), Rules 1994 was allowed and the petitioner was declared as disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch.

The election petition was filed against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was having two additional children after the cut off date, prescribed under the Act of 1994 i.e. November 27, 1995. It was the petitioner’s case that at the time of submission of the nomination form, date of birth of the petitioner’s son-Rajesh was mentioned as July 5, 1990 and date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter-Mamta was mentioned as July 15, 1994. It was submitted that as per the scholar register, maintained by the Government School, the correct date of birth of his son-Rajesh is January 1,1995 and as per the private school record, the date of birth of his daughter -Mamta is April 15,1994. It was contended that without recording any finding with regard to the genuineness of these documents, the impugned judgment had been passed against the petitioner, solely on the basis of the two marksheets of Class-10th issued by the Board of Secondary Education.

At the outset, the Bench referred to Section 19 which states that if any person has more than two children after November 27, 1995, he/she is disqualified to contest the election. It was noted that the Tribunal had recorded that neither the petitioner nor his children Rajesh and Mamta took any steps for correction of their date of birth in their marksheets of Class 10th, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, hence, the same was treated as correct and final.

Reference was also made to Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which talks about relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty. The Bench relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of UP,2022 (8) SCC 602 wherein it has been held that the matriculation certificate is a public document and the same is credible and authentic, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Similarly in the case of Parg Bhati Vs. State of U.P, reported in (2016)12 SCC 744, it has been held by the Apex Court that if the matriculation certificate is available and there is no other material to prove the correctness of date of birth, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth.

The petitioner, in this case, was himself not sure about the correct date of birth of his son Rajesh. Hence, it was clear that the petitioner had not come before the Court with the correct date of birth of his son Rajesh. “...the Election Tribunal has not committed any perversity in holding that having two children after the cut off date i.e. 27.11.1995, provided under Section 19(l) of the Act of 1995 i.e Rajesh on 05.07.1996 and Mamta on 15.07.1998, the petitioner was not eligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch and yet having done so and won, it was liable to be set aside”, it held.

Dismissing the Petition, the Bench directed the Election Officer to declare the result of by elections held for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar forthwith and proceed further in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Jagdish Prasad v. Arvind Kumar [Case No. CW-5961/2023]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Sr.Advocate R.B. Mathur, Advocates Hitesh Bagri, Falak Mathur, Yug Singh & Darsh Shree Verma

Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Mr. Jitendra Choudhary Mr. Neeraj Batra-G.C.

Click here to read/ download Order