JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions are aggrieved of the rejection of their nomination on the ground that the proposer did not adduce any evidence regarding his academic qualification.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he had gone strictly by the check-list provided by the Returning Officer which is on record as Annexure P-7, which did not prescribe any such requirement although the information required of the candidate was set out in detail which he satisfied. The Returning Officer in the impugned orders Annexure P-6 has said that opportunity was provided to the proposer to show his educational certificates which as per Rule 21(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 should have been upto 8th Class considering that he belongs to a scheduled caste category.

(3.) We also notice from the impugned orders that the nomination form was submitted at 11.10 AM and the scrutiny was offered at 11.30 AM. The rejection time, however, is not mentioned.