PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 30.6.2016/17.7.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind and 20.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) of the Additional Chief Secretary in appeal. The Deputy Commissioner by invoking the powers under Sec. 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "1994 Act") has removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch finding him to be disqualified.

(2.) Dr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the amendment caused in Sec. 175 of 1994 Act vide notification dated 7.9.2015, no person shall be eligible for the post of Sarpanch or Panch if he has not passed the matriculation examination or its equivalent examination from any recognised institution/board. The petitioner has passed his matriculation examination from the Central Board of Higher Education, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, which is evident from Annexure P-13.

(3.) He further submitted that the petitioner, on account of his popularity, contribution and active participation in the village development and welfare activities, was elected as Sarpanch of Village Chhatar, Block Uchana, District Jind in the panchayat election held on 17.1.2016 by defeating rival candidate, namely, Ramehar, who developed grudge against him and filed false/frivolous complaint to the Deputy Commissioner qua his matriculation qualification. Resultantly, a show cause notice dated 31.2016 was served upon the petitioner, which was duly replied vide Annexure P- It was specifically mentioned therein that the aforementioned matriculation certificate is duly recognised and in this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4, a letter dated 8.9.1990, whereby it has been referred that the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi is recognised from Government of India. The aforementioned fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, but in a cryptic and erroneous manner, accepted the complaint and removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. He further submitted that the procedure as envisaged under Sec. 176 of 1994 Act has not been followed, in essence the complaint could not have been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner and only the election petition lied. He further submitted that the educational qualification was completed in the year 2011 and the documents submitted by him were got verified. If at all, the documents were not conforming the requirement of law, his nomination was liable to be cancelled. Having failed to do so, the petitioner contested the election and, therefore, the orders under challenge are not acceptable.