2025:UHC:11074 HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI W r it Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1 1 4 8 of 2 0 2 5 1 1 t h Decem ber , 2 0 2 5 Paramjeet Kaur --Petitioner Ver su s State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents with W r it Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1 8 1 9 of 2 0 2 4 Paramjeet Kaur --Petitioner Ver su s 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 1 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. 2 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 3 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. 4 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. 5 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 6 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. 7 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 8 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. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) Dt: 11.12.2025 Navin 9 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.12.12 18:36:21 +05'30'