Class 10 Marksheet is a public document, credible and authentic as a birth certificate: Rajasthan High Court

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the election tribunal’s decision disqualifying a man from the post of Sarpanch for having two more children after the cut-off date, reiterating that the admission certificate (Class 10 mark sheet) is a public document and is credible and reliable. authentic under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

According to the court, this is especially in view of the fact that the dates of birth occur in class 10 Mark sheets had become final because they had not been challenged.

The bank of Judge Anoop Kumar Dhand heard a petition filed by a Sarpanch who was disqualified from the post in an election petition decided by the Additional High Civil Judge under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, on the ground that he had had two children after the closing date was November 27, 1995. The petitioner’s election was also set aside by the tribunal.

For context, Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act determines the relevance of an entry in a public register and provides that an entry in a public or other official book stating a fact is made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties , a relevant fact in itself. Section 19 of the Act deals with qualification for election as a Panch member and provides that if a person has more than two children after November 27, 1995, he/she will be disqualified from contesting the election.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State 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 Supreme Court said that the the petitioner was unsure of the date of birth of his son, whether he was born before or after the birth of his daughter. It noted that in the petitioner’s appointment form, the son is shown as the eldest of the daughter, while before the Tribunal, the son was shown as the youngest of the daughter. The Supreme Court noted that three different dates of birth of the son are available.

The court states that the applicant himself is not sure of the correct date of birth of his son and that the applicant therefore did not appear at the court with the correct date of birth of his son.

Then it said: “In the light of the above facts, reasons and judicial decisions, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are of no use to the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because the statement regarding the date of birth of the children in their mark sheets of Class 10 in the records of the Board of Secondary Education, has not been disputed by anyone, hence the same has become final and no reason has been given by the petitioner on what basis the incorrect dates of birth of his son and daughter were made by the Board of Secondary Education included in the archives of the class 10th mark sheet. He has failed miserably to convince this Court that if the dates of birth of his son and daughter are not correct in the mark sheets of class 10 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, even then why no action has been taken by any of them to correct this from the date of birth in the records of the Board of Secondary Education.”

The petitioner was elected Sarpanch and his election was challenged by the respondent (his opponent) on the ground that he had two children after the cut-off date of November 27, 1995 and was thus disqualified. It was alleged that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information about the dates of birth of his son and daughter in his nomination papers when according to them they were class 10^e Marksheets, their ages were July 5, 1996 and July 5, 1998 respectively.

On the other hand, the case of the petitioner was that at the time of filling his nomination form, the petitioner had mistakenly entered the wrong dates of birth of his son and daughter i.e. July 5, 1990 and July 15, 1994 respectively. However, the correct date of birth of his son was January 1, 1995 according to the register maintained by the Government School, and his daughter’s was April 15, 1995 according to the private school’s file.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had also furnished the school admission forms for these dates of birth, but without taking the same into account, the judgment was passed against the petitioner. It was argued that class 10^e Marksheets could not be treated as the sole criterion for determining date of birth when other evidence was available.

The Supreme Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in its ruling Ashwani Kumar Saxena v State of Parliament wherein it was held that the admission certificate issued by CBSE would take precedence over any other proof of date of birth.

Moreover, the Court also took into account several other factors, such as that the school admission forms were not submitted by the petitioner, but by the children’s uncle, who was not examined to prove these documents. It further noted that no steps were taken by the petitioner and the children to have their dates of birth corrected in class 10.^e Marksheets, i.e. the same, were treated as final and correct. Moreover, the petitioner’s son had also been given a job on the basis of his class 10th^e markblad.

In this background, the Court referred to the case of the Rajasthan High Court Smt. Ummed Kanwar vs Prabhu Singh which held that the required standard of proof in an election petition was not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but only “preponderance of probability,” and was complied with.

“It was the task of the Tribunal to consider and appreciate the entirety of the Electoral Applicant’s evidence before placing it next to the defense evidence… It was not within the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal to overlook the lists of marks which were issued by an authorized officer of the Board of Directors. Secondary education with regard to the date of birth of two children of the petitioner.”

Since there was no defect in the tribunal’s order, the Supreme Court upheld the same. “The court finds this petition without merit and merit, and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed.“, the court said.

It also directed the election officer to immediately declare the result of the by-election to the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, Tehsil Thanagaji, Alwar district and proceed in accordance with law.

Case title: Jagdigh Prasad v. Arvind Kumar & Ors.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 363

Click here to read/download the order