[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:11074
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1148 of 2025
11th December, 2025
Paramjeet Kaur --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
with
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1819 of 2024
Paramjeet Kaur --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.K. Mandal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajeev
Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the caveator.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Since common questions of fact and law are
involved in these petitions, therefore, they are clubbed
together and are being heard & decided by a common
judgment.
2. Petitioner was elected as Pradhan, Gram
Sabha Lamgrant, Block Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar
2025:UHC:11074
in the last three tier general elections held in 2022. A
complaint was made against her on the date of
nomination that she has filed certain educational
certificates with her nomination papers, which are
forged, thus, she is not educationally qualified for being
appointed as Pradhan in terms of provision contained in
Section 8 (1) (q) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act,
2016. The election was held on 26.09.2022 and result
thereof was declared on 29.09.2022 in which petitioner
was declared elected.
3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, notice was
issued to the petitioner, asking her to put forth her
version in the matter.
4. In her reply to the notice, petitioner took the
stand that she passed 8th standard from Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Junior High School, Beribag, Saharanpur.
5. Learned State Counsel, however, has drawn
attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by petitioner
along with her nomination papers, which is enclosed as
Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent
no. 4. In her affidavit, petitioner has mentioned that
she passed 9th standard from HAV Inter College,
Saharanpur in the year 1996.
2025:UHC:11074
6. As per the information furnished by the
petitioner in her nomination papers, a report was called
from the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur. In
his letter dated 4.11.2022, District Inspector of
Schools, Sahranpur informed that as per the report
dated 12.10.2022 received from HAV Inter College,
Saharanpur, petitioner never studied in the said
college.
7. The Prescribed Authority, after considering
the report submitted by District Inspector of Schools,
Saharanpur, passed an order on 12.4.2023, declaring
petitioner as disqualified for holding the post of
Pradhan.
8. Petitioner filed appeal against the said order
with the contention that she passed 8th standard from
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Junior High School, Saharanpur
and not from HAV Inter College, as alleged. The
Appellate Authority/Chief Development Officer
dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 31.5.2024, by
holding that petitioner never studied in HAV Inter
College, Saharanpur as per the reports submitted by
Education Authorities of District Saharanpur; the
Educational Certificates, including Transfer Certificate
could not be verified from Dr. Rajendra Prasad Junior
2025:UHC:11074
High School, Saharanpur, due to non-availability of
record in the concerned school. The Appellate Authority
further held that since petitioner has relied upon 9th
standard marksheet, alleged to have been issued by
HAV Inter College, Saharanpur while submitting
nomination papers and after enquiry it is revealed that
petitioner never took admission in the said college,
therefore, she furnished incorrect information in her
nomination papers, therefore, her stand that she
studied from some other school cannot be entertained,
especially when the qualification now relied by the
petitioner could not be verified for want of relevant
record.
9. Petitioner has filed two writ petitions. In Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 1148 of 2025, she has challenged
order dated 11.4.2025 passed by District Magistrate,
Haridwar under Section 138 (1) (d) (iii) of Uttarakhand
Panchayati Raj Act and consequential order passed by
District Panchayati Raj Officer, Haridwar; and in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 1819 of 2024, petitioner has
challenged orders dated 12.04.2023 & 31.05.2024
passed by Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority
respectively.
2025:UHC:11074
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that as per Section 8 (1) (q) of Uttarakhand
Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, the qualification required in
respect of women candidates is middle/8th standard;
while, for general category candidates, the qualification
prescribed is High School/ 10th standard. He submits
that petitioner passed 8th standard from Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Junior High School, Saharanpur and she relied
upon the certificates issued by the said school in her
nomination papers, and petitioner is not aware how the
name of the school was changed in the nomination
papers, however, when a pointed query was put to
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that
in her affidavit filed along with nomination papers,
petitioner had mentioned that she had passed 9th
standard from HAV Inter College, Saharanpnur and the
affidavit is duly signed by the petitioner and she has
not disowned her signature on the affidavit, either in
her reply to the show cause notice or in the writ
petition, therefore, petitioner would be bound by her
statement made on oath before the Returning Officer,
then he was clueless and could not give any
satisfactory reply.
2025:UHC:11074
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner then submits that as per the Statute, the
issue of disqualification is required to be decided by
Prescribed Authority, himself, however, he erred in
relying upon the report submitted by District Inspector
of Schools, Saharanpur.
12. The said submission is devoid of merit.
Section 8 (5) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act
provides that whenever a question arises as to whether
a person has become subject to any disqualification,
such question shall be referred to the Prescribed
Authority and his decision shall be final subject to result
of the appeal, as may be prescribed.
13. The question whether petitioner was a
bonafide student of some school in State of Uttar
Pradesh, as described in her nomination papers, could
not have been independently ascertained by the
Prescribed Authority, therefore, calling a report from
the authority competent to give expert opinion on the
matter cannot be faulted, especially when there is no
prohibition in the Statute against calling such report.
Whether an educational institution was recognized at
the relevant point or whether a person was bonafide
student of a recognized school are the issues, which
2025:UHC:11074
can be appropriately dealt with by the authorities of
education department, who have statutory powers to
regulate the functioning of educational institutions,
both Government and Government Aided. Admittedly,
District Inspector of Schools exercises regulatory
powers under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
therefore, to have a definite opinion on the issue of
educational qualification of the petitioner, Prescribed
Authority was justified in calling report from a statutory
authority, i.e., District Inspector of Schools.
14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner then submitted that wrongful acceptance of
nomination papers is a valid ground for challenging
election in an election petition, therefore, the
complaint ought not have been entertained and the
complainant should have been relegated to the remedy
of election petition and the power available under
Section 138 (1) (d) (iii) cannot be invoked for removing
the petitioner from the office of Pradhan. He further
submits that the complaint made against the petitioner
was not supported by an affidavit, therefore,
cognizance could not have been taken on a complaint,
which was not verified by affidavit.
2025:UHC:11074
15. Learned State Counsel, however, submits
that these contentions were considered and decided
against petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 840 of
2024 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2940 of 2025. In
WPMS No. 2940 of 2025, this Court has held that The
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans,
Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 were
framed by State of Uttar Pradesh to give effect to
provision contained in Section 95 (1)(g) of Uttar
Pardesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which provided for
removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Member of a Gram
Panchayat, after enquiry held in such manner, as may
be 'prescribed'.
16. Section 8(5) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj
Act, however, does not provide for any enquiry. No
mode of enquiry is prescribed in Section 8(5) of
Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act and the Prescribed
Authority is free to take decision on the reference.
Under Section 95(1)(g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj
Act, the person, authorized to hold enquiry and the
mode of enquiry would be such as prescribed by the
Rules
17. This Court finds substance in the submission
made by learned State Counsel. Since other issues
2025:UHC:11074
raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner were
considered and decided in judgment rendered in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 840 of 2024 and Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 2940 of 2025, therefore, they are not separately
being dealt with here and are answered accordingly.
18. Since petitioner relied upon the educational
certificates issued by HAV Inter College in her
nomination papers, therefore, she cannot be permitted
to change her stand by submitting that she studied
from a different school, namely Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Junior High School, Saharanpur. The orders passed by
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority
therefore call for no interference.
19. Thus, the challenge to the order passed by
District Magistrate and District Panchayat Raj Officer is
also without any substance. The writ petitions
accordingly fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Dt: 11.12.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f
487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,
CHANDRA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819
DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5,
cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.12.12 18:36:21 +05'30'
