Class 10 Marksheet Is A Public Document, Credible And Authentic As Proof Of Birth: Rajasthan High Court
Nupur Agrawal
26 Nov 2024 12:03 PM IST
Upholding the election tribunal's decision disqualifying a man from the post of Sarpanch as he had two additional children after cut off date, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that matriculation certificate (Class 10 mark sheet) is a public document and is credible and authentic as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
This is court said, was especially in light of the fact that the birth dates appearing in the Class 10 Mark sheets had attained finality as the same had not been challenged.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a Sarpanch who was adjudged as disqualified for the post in an election petition decided by the Additional Senior Civil Judge on the ground of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 on the ground that he had two children after the cut-off date of November 27, 1995. The election of the petitioner was also set aside by the tribunal.
For context, Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down relevance of entry in a public record and provides that an entry in any public or other official book stating a fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty was in itself a relevant fact. Section 19 of the Act deals with qualification for election as a Panch of a member and provides that if any person had more than two children after 27th November, 1995, he/she shall be disqualified to contest the election.
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of UP (2022) the court said 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.
The high court said that the petitioner was not sure about the date of birth of son–whether he was born before or after the birth of his daughter. It noted that in the petitioner's nomination form the son is shown as elder to the daughter, while before the Tribunal the son was shown as younger to the daughter. The high court noted that three different dates of birth of the son are available on the record.
The court said that the petitioner himself is not sure about the correct date of birth of his son and hence it was that the petitioner has not come before the Court with the correct date of birth of his son.
It then said, "In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because the entry regarding date of birth of the children in their marksheets of Class 10th in the records of Board of Secondary Education, has not been challenged by anyone, hence the same has attained finality and no reason has been assigned by the petitioner that on what basis incorrect dates of birth of his son and daughter were recorded in the records of Class 10th marksheet by the Board of Secondary Education. 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.”
The Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch and his election was challenged by the respondent (his opponent) on the grounds that he had two children after the cut-off date of November 27, 1995 and thus was disqualified. It was argued that the petitioner had submitted incorrect information regarding the birth dates of his son and daughter in his nomination papers while as per their Class 10th Marksheets, their ages were July 5, 1996, and July 5, 1998, respectively.
On the other hand, it was the petitioner's case that at the time of filling his nomination form, the petitioner had inadvertently filled wrong birth dates of his son and daughter i.e. July 5, 1990 and July 15, 1994 respectively. However, the correct birth date of his son was January 1, 1995 as per the register maintained by the Government School, and of his daughter was April 15, 1995 as per the private school record.
It was further submitted that the petitioner had also furnished the school admission forms for this birth dates but without considering the same, the judgment was passed against the petitioner. It was argued that Class 10th Marksheets could not be treated as the sole criterion to determine the date of birth when other evidence was available.
The high court in its order also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v State of M.P. in which it was held that the matriculation certificate issued by CBSE would be given precedence over any other evidence of the birth date.
Furthermore, the Court also took into account various other factors like, the school admission forms were submitted not by the petitioner but the children's uncle who was not examined to prove these documents. Further, it noted, that no steps were taken by the petitioner or the children for getting their birth dates corrected in the Class 10th Marksheets, hence the same were treated as final and correct. Moreover, petitioner's son had also gotten a job based on his class 10th marksheet.
In this background, the Court referred to the Rajasthan High Court case of Smt. Ummed Kanwar v Prabhu Singh in which it was held that standard of proof required in an election petition was not “beyond reasonable doubt” but only “preponderance of probability”, and observed.
“it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider and appreciate the totality of Election Petitioner's evidence before it juxtaposed to the defence evidence… It was not within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to overlook the mark-sheets issued by a competent officer of the Board of Secondary Education pertaining to the date of birth of two children of the petitioner.”
Finding no infirmity with the tribunal's order the high court upheld the same. "This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition, accordingly the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed," the court said.
It also directed the Election Officer to declare the result of bye elections held for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar forthwith and proceed further in accordance with law.
Case Title: Jagdigh Prasad v Arvind Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 363
